ECOFERM puts cell retention at the centre of continuous fermentation

INTRODUCTION

A Dutch public-private group has formed to test continuous production of fermentation-derived proteins. Its members say better cell retention could reduce downtime and costly separation.

According to Cultivated X and vegconomist, ECOFERM has six members. They include NIZO Food Research, a contract manufacturing group; the Biotechnology Fermentation Factory, a fermentation production facility; and DAB.bio, a fermentation technology specialist. The other participants are Vivici, a fermented protein producer; dsm-firmenich, an ingredients sector group; and Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences. TKI Agri & Food, a food innovation programme, funds the project through a Dutch model that combines public, commercial and research money.

The partnership will use beta-lactoglobulin, or BLG, as one test protein. The publications disagree about the disclosed timetable. Green Queen describes ECOFERM as a two-year programme, while Cultivated X and vegconomist say its duration has not been revealed. The latter outlets also report that the partners have withheld the budget. That leaves a defined technical plan, but no public spending figure against which to assess it.

CORE FINDING

ECOFERM’s central engineering choice is to combine continuous operation with controlled microbial agglomeration. Green Queen reports that cells will be encouraged to form groups inside the vessel rather than leave with the product stream. The liquid containing the target protein could then be removed while most of the production organisms remain. The group presents this approach as a possible basis for making valuable proteins at industrial scale. That is the project’s objective, not a demonstrated result.

All three accounts describe a research programme rather than a completed experiment. They provide no yield data, run times, contamination rates or cost comparisons. The intended outcome is a production system that can operate for longer periods without repeatedly stopping the vessel. ECOFERM also expects the work to inform production of ingredients other than BLG. The evidence for that wider use has yet to be generated.

OPERATING MODEL

Commercial production now relies mainly on fed-batch processing, according to the joint account published by Cultivated X and vegconomist. Operators add feed during a run, then stop production when the batch ends. They empty the tank before cleaning and sterilising it for the next cycle. Each stage occupies equipment without making more protein. The consortium argues that avoiding those intervals could improve vessel use and reduce operating costs. Neither publication provides a monetary estimate for the saving.

A conventional continuous system solves only part of that problem. Green Queen notes that fresh nutrients enter while broth and product leave. Productive organisms can depart in the same stream. That loss may reduce the concentration of working cells inside the bioreactor. Extended operation also creates exposure to contamination, genetic change and declining process performance. Those risks make uninterrupted production more complicated than simply leaving the tank switched on.

The proposed agglomeration step addresses the loss of organisms. Larger cell groups should be easier to retain while product-bearing liquid exits, according to the two sister publications. ECOFERM says this could remove the need for membranes, centrifuges and other equipment used to separate biomass from product. Such machinery consumes energy and adds downstream processing stages. The sources do not quantify its share of total production cost or power use.

TEST PROGRAMME

Green Queen explains that the underlying method gives microbes a DNA sequence that directs them to make a selected molecule during fermentation. The publication cites whey, casein and ovalbumin as examples of animal proteins that can be produced this way. ECOFERM will use BLG among its representative cases. The reports identify BLG as the main whey protein in cow’s milk. They do not name the microbial host, genetic construct or nutrient feed planned for the trial.

The research will run on DAB.bio’s FAST reactor. Green Queen says the work will examine biological conditions, equipment settings and operating practices. Researchers will study how to start and control agglomeration, then keep that behaviour stable. They will also assess reactor performance and prepare methods for larger production systems. No vessel capacity, target output or minimum run length appears in the supplied accounts.

Those workstreams cover different failure points. Cell biology determines whether organisms form suitable groups without losing productivity. Reactor engineering governs fluid movement, feeding and product removal. Operating controls must keep the culture within acceptable conditions over a long run. The project’s stated scale-up task then has to translate those findings beyond a research vessel. ECOFERM has not published pass or fail thresholds for any of these stages.

COMMERCIAL CONTEXT

Vivici gives the programme a direct link to an existing ingredient business. Cultivated X reports that the company already sells fermentation-derived BLG under the Vivitein brand. The publication also says Vivici signed a manufacturing agreement last year with Liberation Labs, a contract production partner, for output in Richmond, Indiana. Green Queen adds that the protein has clearance for sale in the US. It says Vivici is working with manufacturers in Europe and the US to make whey proteins at commercial scale.

The participants also have links that predate ECOFERM. Green Queen reports that Vivici maintains a dairy protein application laboratory at NIZO Food Research. Vivici was established with support from dsm-firmenich and Fonterra, a founding commercial backer, according to the other two outlets. The test group therefore contains a product seller, one of its original supporters, a research contractor and a reactor specialist. That mix should help the partners compare laboratory needs with manufacturing constraints, although no division of responsibilities has been published.

Green Queen places the programme within a broader European policy effort. It links ECOFERM to a European Commission food research and innovation strategy that seeks a more competitive agrifood system. The strategy also identifies a need for facilities that can expand production methods such as this one, according to the publication. ECOFERM’s partners claim lower costs and resource use could strengthen European biotechnology and food manufacturing. The supplied material offers no independent economic analysis of that claim.

POSITIONING

Robyn Eijlander, project manager at NIZO Food Research and the Biotechnology Fermentation Factory, argues that process changes are needed to improve production economics. She presents the combination of continuous operation and biomass retention as a route to more output with fewer resources. That is the consortium’s case for the work. No source provides comparative data showing how much either measure could change.

DAB.bio chief executive Eric van der Meer describes continuous processing as a necessary stage in the field’s development. He says the collaboration aims to produce both practical knowledge and technical demonstrations for alternative proteins. His position sets a commercial test for the research: the system must move beyond a controlled trial. The reports do not identify a customer trial, demonstration site or subsequent investment decision.

LIMITS

Several issues remain open. None of the supplied sources gives the project budget, even though TKI Agri & Food provides funding. They do not state the public and private shares of that support. The disagreement over duration also remains unresolved. Green Queen gives a two-year term, while the two related publications say the partners did not disclose one. No source explains whether the shorter description reflects later information or a reporting difference.

The technical gaps are equally material. The accounts contain no baseline for current fed-batch productivity. They give no expected improvement in carbon yield, protein concentration or equipment use. No environmental assessment supports the stated resource benefits. The sources also omit quality controls for the harvested protein and any regulatory route for ingredients produced through the proposed system. Those omissions do not invalidate the study, but they prevent an economic or environmental judgement before results appear.

ECOFERM must also show that cell clumping does not exchange one separation problem for another. The project plan includes stable agglomeration and sustained reactor performance, according to Green Queen. That focus acknowledges the risk. Yet the reports contain no detail on how researchers will control aggregate size, recover product trapped among cells or respond if productivity falls. The mechanism is plausible enough to test. Commercial reliability remains unproven.

CONCLUSION

ECOFERM addresses a specific production constraint, but its announcement supplies no proof that controlled agglomeration works at commercial scale. The decisive evidence will be stable cell retention, measured FAST reactor performance and an industrial scale-up plan with disclosed economics.