Progress 08/15/21 to 04/14/23

Outputs
Target Audience:Beta Hatch is an insect farming company based in Washignton State. We have been collaborating with food system stakeholders throughout our project, and work with a fruit processing company called CrunchPak as one of our main vendors, sourcing apple cores and other food waste as inputs for our insects. The audience of this effort was our insect farming community (connected to through the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture, of which Beta Hatch is a founding member), the food processing community (such as our vendors CrunchPak and Wilbur Ellis, who supply us with food waste and co-products as inputs), and the general academic community interested in sustainable food systems. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project engaged many indivduals across our organization including quality control staff, scientists and engineers. The project allowed us to train those staff in experimental design, reporting, and problem solving to address the objectives of the project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Unfortunately Beta Hatch is closing its doors operationally, and it is uncertain what will happen to this work going forward. We are however looking to share our findings with the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture, so that this work can continue on to the benefit of our industry. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective #1: Develop a modular unit for mealworm processing HVAC design of MFTU CONDITIONED UNCONDITIONED UNCONDITIONED Objective #2: Test performance of modular processing feedstock testing unit (MFTU) Objective 2a: Impact of MPU in mealworm biology Summary Materials and Methods Results and Conclusions Environmental conditions of growing space From neonate to 4-week-old mealworms: impact of wet feed type and dispersal on mealworm growth From 4-week-old to 8-week-old mealworms ready for sale: impact of feedstock source and wet feed type and dispersal on mealworm growth Objective 2b: Impact of MPU on mealworm product quality Table 2.1. ab Different letters within a row indicate significant difference between treatment means (one way ANOVA; post Tukey-Kramer, P<0.05) Objective 2c: Validate operations of the modular growing and processing units together Objective #3: Model the operating costs of the MFTU in different geographies Objective 3a: Develop a protocol for assessing use of by-products in mealworm diets. Part 1: Testing of novel ingredient Summary Materials and Methods th Results and Conclusions Figure 3.1 The summary of key performance indicators during preliminary study testing the inclusion of a variety of yellow sorghum as a feedstock. Box plots show the median, upper and lower quartiles. A) Larval weight gain (LWG); B) LWG/frass produced; p<0.0001; C) FCR; D) LWG/Food consumed; E) individual mealworm weight (iMW); F) survival (%). Different letters indicate a significant difference between groups. (one way ANOVA; post Tukey-Kramer P<0.05. Part 2: Rearing mealworms using novel ingredients Summary Materials and Methods Results and Conclusions Tenebrio molitor Objective 3b: Develop the model for calculating the cost of the modular units' operations considering environmental conditions. Summary Heat Loss = (1/R-value)(surface area)(?T) . Results and Conclusions Heat loss. Annual Electricity Cost. Summary Materials and Methods Results and Conclusions Three total tiers were presented as the prices of live mealworms have a broad range (Fig. 3.6). The container is not profitable if the live mealworm value is set to $17.08/kg. At the second tier most of the MFTUs could generate profit. However, if the live mealworms were sold at the highest tier, the profit is much higher and brings revenue in all geographical locations. The MFTU unit will be the least profitable in Alaska (no profit from Tier 1 and Tier 2 sales). The profits are estimated to be low as well in Georgia, Hawaii, and Nevada mostly due to the cost of labor and electricity costs. The five most profitable states based on the model are North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Indiana, and Oklahoma. These states produce large quantities of agricultural crops such as soybeans, corn, wheat, and peanuts. Oklahoma is also growing large quantities of sorghum. The processing of all these agricultural commodities results in various types of waste and by-products: while wheat products constitute basic conventional diets for mealworms, corn DDGS, peanut meal and sorghum have been used in experimental diets with positive outcomes for rearing mealworms. ?

Publications

Progress 08/15/21 to 08/14/22

Outputs
Target Audience:Current effort has not reached an external audience - we will be working with commercial clients in the final phase of the work. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Several professionals in our research, engineering and operations departments were invovled in this work, gaining new skills. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective #1: Develop a modular unit for mealworm processing As mentioned in the previous progress report (PR#1), we have modified our work on this objective slightly: instead of designing an all-in-one modular processing unit for mealworms, we have developed designs for an all-in-one modular feedstock testing unit (MFTU). The unit will not only house processing equipment but will also feature spaces devoted to diet and insect preparation, cleaning, storage, and feature an environmentally controlled grow space. This unit alone could be transported and setup for testing by prospective insect ranchers looking to upcycle organic wastes. The original design had 4 separate rooms (see PR#1) and the container was loaded with machines and temporary walls to get a better sense of the space allowances and flow of materials through the rooms. The first room from the door is the diet preparation room that contains a pelletizer along with storage and workspace to make and store diets. The second room is the cleaning room and supply storage, and it includes a sink, a refrigerator (for wet feed), and a freezer (kill step). All cleaning supplies would also be kept here. The third room is the processing and QC area. A repurposed screen-based separation table will be used to split tray contents into frass, dry feed, and insects. The insects will then go through a second separation step to sort out life stages on a separation table. This room also accommodates a desk for data collection. The fourth and final room is the grow room. The room is designed to fit 16 dollies of 12 trays, and these trays would house the insects. Each week a technician would enter this room and feed each tray a supplemental wet feed or, when the trays are ready for harvest, a dolly of trays would be removed from the grow space into the processing room to be processed and data recorded. Insects would then be culled via the freezer in the second room and the empty trays would be stored back inside the grow room. This above mock-up was then vetted by a new set of trained technicians to ensure best working conditions. We highlighted several concerns that were assessed by the technicians: Would 16 dollies (i.e., stacks of rolling trays) inside the designated grow space lead to constraints in movement and flow? Is the division between room 1 and 2 important? Combining these two rooms would allow for equipment to be condensed and the processing room to be expanded. How can we change the arrange the equipment in the processing room to allow for better flow of materials from the grow room? After mock uses and discussion, it was decided that there was no need to separate the first two rooms from each other. The removal of the wall that divided these rooms afforded the rearrangement the equipment to maximize use of the space. Originally the wall was in place to keep dry diet ingredients separate from excess humidity stemming from the washdown area. Tray washing will now be kept to a minimum and used trays can be kept inside the grow room until the feed trial is over. The sink will now be used for cleaning equipment and cleaning the container on a weekly basis along with rinsing of wet feed. The risk of dry feedstock being ruined are now minimal. Combining these two rooms also allowed for the expansion of the processing space by several feet. The screen-based separation table was then moved from the corner of the processing room to the center of the room against a wall. This allows for both outlets to be positioned to either side and allows for the center of the room to be used by the technician for processing. Another key modification was to place the screen-based separation table on wheels so that it can be moved around. This allows for the space to be temporarily transformed to allow for dolly flow into the processing space for either harvest or weekly wet feeding. Originally, we envisioned standard doors for each room. To save space, sliding pocket doors were determined to be to be more efficient and eliminates the need to accommodate space for the opening of a door inside an adjacent room. This also allowed for the door leading to the grow room to be moved to the center of the wall to accommodate additional equipment and better flow between rooms. Once the above decisions were made, we added new walls and placed equipment inside. Figure 1 provides a photograph of the inside of the newly constructed MFTU. Objective #2: Test performance of modularfeedstock testing unit This work awaits completion of the construction of the MFTU Objective #3: Model the operating costs of the MFTU in different geographies Sorghum was identified as a novel feedstock that can be used for mealworms rearing. There is great interest in bio-converting the crop into feed for fish. Most of the USA sorghum is grown in just a few states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. We have gathered data on electricity costs, agricultural labor, taxes, and environmental data in these states to run cost estimate scenarios on rearing mealworms in the containerized units. We will keep these data confidential and create a model to identify the best location for a MFTU trial. We tested the inclusion of a variety of yellow sorghum as a feedstock for mealworms using three different diets: 100% whole grain sorghum (SR-100G), 100% sorghum that was ground, mixed with distilled water and baked to form a 'cookie' (SR-100), and 85% millrun with 15% sorghum cookie (MR-85/SR-15). These were set up alongside two controls: 100% millrun cookie (MR-100) and 85% wheat bran with 15% dried potato cookie (MR-85/P-15). Sorghum has a similar crude nutrient profile to potatoes, and the inclusion of potatoes in mealworm diets is known to boost performance in the adult stage. Sorghum is more affordable than potato, and so Beta Hatch is interested to fully evaluate its inclusion in mealworm feed. Mealworms gained the most weight on the millrun diet supplemented with 15% sorghum (MR-85/SR-15; Fig. 2A), although this larval gain weight (LWG) did not differ significantly from the control diets (MR-100, MR-85/P15). Generally, mealworms fed on the MR-85/SR 15 performed similarly to the controls in terms of LWG per frass produced (Fig. 2B), FCR (Fig. 2C), LWG per food consumed (Fig. 2D) and the individual mealworm weight (Fig. 2E). Although the lowest LWG was achieved by the mealworms fed exclusively on 100% sorghum (SR-100G) as unprocessed grain, this diet showed the best values for LWG per frass produced (Fig. 2B), FCR (Fig. 2C), and LWG per food consumed (Fig. 2D). The significant difference in survival was only found between SR-100 and MR-100 (Fig. 2F). Interestingly, both the addition of sorghum and preprocessing (i.e., SR-100 'cookie') impacted the macronutrient composition and caloric content of mealworms (Table 1). This suggests that sorghum can be a tool for optimizing insect meal nutrient content as an aquafeed ingredient, and that different sorghum varieties, based on nutritional content, endosperm, kernel hardness and tannin content should be evaluated. These early results show that sorghum as a novel feedstock for insect rearing is a promising ingredient when supplemented with the conventional feedstock such as millrun. It shows that at 15% supplementation, the basic larval weight and development is the same as the controls and results in similar output metrics. These data demonstrate that sorghum is a viable ingredient for use in insect diets, warranting further investigation with more varieties and forms. Indeed, Beta Hatch was recently contacted by a sorghum producer to discuss the potential of sorghum as a sustainable substrate for insect production that can create a value-chain from a sustainable commodity to a sustainable protein ingredient to sustainably grown fish.?

Publications