5 ms·

Tiny Farms Raises Seed Round as Cricket Farming Heats Up

43 points by DanI-S 11y ago

aurizon 11y ago
I can not wait to see a 2000 pound cricket, bred for size by conventional means...;)
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Sorry to step on your harmless joke, but big insects can't breathe: https://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/gigantism-in-insects/ https://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/gigantism-in-in...
  - Mz 11y ago
    While that exact realization did make me stop being freaked out by giant spiders in movies, technically "they can't breathe" in earth's current atmosphere. Presumably, if it was worth the expense involved, you could grow giant insects in closed biomes with higher oxygen levels and (I assume) higher atmospheric pressure. Also: Jurassic Park is BS for the same reason. The T Rex would not function in earth's current atmosphere -- at least not without tampering with their physiology and/or some kind of extra support system.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Even then they probably didn't get much bigger than a cat. http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/ http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-cou... The huge dragonflys were still only somewhere between a crow and raven in size.
      - Mz 11y ago
        Well, I don't know what the limits would be on size, but you seem to be presuming that historical limits are hard limits. I think that is as much a mistake as assuming current sizes are hard limits. It might take crazy levels of oxygen and pressure or it might be undoable, but if we were to create environments for this purpose, hell, why stick to recreating historic earth conditions?
  - mrfusion 11y ago
    What if we raise them in a pure oxygen environment?
    - x5n1 11y ago
      heh heh heh
  - aurizon 11y ago
    Yes, I am well aware of the spiracular limitations of existing insect breathing and blood, but a fictitious mechanism to modify the insects can also adapt their blood and oxygen circulation system to the larger sizes. Grasshoppers have nice hams - can you imagine herding 1000 pound gigantism adapted grasshoppers? What would you ride? Why Kangaroos - of course...;)
wnevets 11y ago
IIRC it's been shown that cricket farming at scale is no more effective than cow/chicken farming
- turaw 11y ago
  You're probably thinking of "Crickets Are Not a Free Lunch" [1]. For reference, the search terms to find that study were 'cricket farming efficiency' :) [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118785 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
- DanI-S 11y ago
  I'm one of the founders of Tiny Farms. I think you're probably recalling an article published in PLOS ONE last year that suggested the sustainability of crickets might not meet the hype. We were obviously very interested in the study! It turns out that the paper missed some crucial factors that make insects a sustainable, efficient protein source. I guest-wrote this post with some details; do take a look if you're interested. http://blog.exoprotein.com/crickets-vs-chicken/ http://blog.exoprotein.com/crickets-vs-chicken/
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Sooo tl;dr: is that chickens use more water, produce more manure, and tend to be butchered away from the farms, but the study was still correct in it's food to protein conversions being almost the same between poultry and crickets?
    - DanI-S 11y ago
      I guess I'd summarize the feed conversion part as follows: - Crickets are slightly better than poultry at converting poultry feed into protein. - Crickets are great at converting processed grocery store waste into protein; poultry can't do this at all. - Both species are awful at converting low quality food waste (a mix of chicken poop and straw) into protein. - The efficient feed conversion of modern poultry comes only after years of research, development and breeding; the efficient feed conversion of insects comes "out of the box" and will only improve over time.
noondip 11y ago
> The tiny insects have been eaten in developing nations for centuries, but now consumers in the Western world are increasingly accepting them as an efficient and sustainable source of protein. Every food has protein in it. Bananas have protein. Tomatoes have protein. All plant foods have a complete amino acid profile fit for human consumption. In fact, protein is the easiest macronutrient to get enough of, provided caloric needs are being met. So it's perplexing why eating insects is billed as a 'sustainable source of protein'. Is it more sustainable than say, rice or potatoes?
- theandrewbailey 11y ago
  When you want to eat protein, what do you eat? Meat. It usually comes from livestock (chicken, pork, beef, fish, etc). Crickets are far more sustainable than those conventional sources of protein.
  - noondip 11y ago
    As I had explained in the parent comment, all food has protein, so it's not necessary to specially source it from a particular food. Especially when that food appears extremely unpalatable (or am I the only one who doesn't salivate at the sight of crickets?).
    - panglott 11y ago
      The article talks about harvesting them by freeze drying them and milling them into a flour. Ultimately this is protein as a dietary supplement. People are willing to pay high prices for meat because meat is tasty and features in numerous delicious recipes, as well as being a source of protein. Crickets would have to be much, much cheaper than meat if the intended market is cricket flour for protein supplementation.
    - jqm 11y ago
      All food may have protein, but all food does not have essential amino acids (which cannot be made by your body) in the quantities required to maintain health. This is why non-meat eaters must be sure to add certain foods (or certain combination of foods) to their diet if they want to stay healthy. Not bagging on vegetarianism, but the idea you can get sufficient protein by just eating any old plant is.... wrong. And animal protein is a far easier and certain way to get essential amino acids. This from a guy who was a vegetarian for a number of years.
hendekagon 11y ago
nope
clebio 11y ago
> Farms raise seed round Pun intended??
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  GMOney cricket !
duncancarroll 11y ago
As someone who once owned geckos and fed them with crickets, the memory of the smell alone is enough to deter me from ever eating any cricket-based product.
- felipemora 11y ago
  Seafood can be quite stinky also and yet lots of people have no problem eating it.
  - jonnathanson 11y ago
    Exactly. And honestly, if you've ever eaten a whole, unpeeled shrimp or prawn before, it's not too much of a stretch going from there to something like crickets. They are both arthropods. They are distantly related. They look kinda-sorta-not-too-dissimilar in their natural state. The key difference is size. There's a lot more meat in your typical prawn, and this allows you to peal and prep it in a way that distances you from its natural appearance. There's less meat inside the cricket, so you pretty much have to eat it whole, shell and all. The resulting texture is less meaty and more mealy/crunchy. In my experience eating crickets, I've always been aware that I'm eating crickets. There is no fantastic way to mitigate the texture and the mouthfeel, shy of grinding up the crickets into a powder and reconstituting them in some other form. (The texture doesn't bug me per se, but it sure does seem to bug a lot of people who've tried crickets. No pun intended.)
    - duncancarroll 11y ago
      It's possible some crickets are less stinky than others. But man, that smell... Shrimp, etc don't stink like that.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - duncancarroll 11y ago
    Sure, but I honestly can't think of a seafood product, raw or cooked that smells quite as bad as crickets do. Even when cooked they somehow retain the smell (I accidentally tried a "grashopper" taco once--turned out it was actually crickets--one bite was too much.)
taylorbuley 11y ago
Unfortunately for them this reminds me of pigeons! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-and-the-ponzi-scheme-that-shook-canada.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-a...
SatoshiRoberts 11y ago
Chocolate dipped crickets actually doesn't sound that bad. It could be a hipster's crunch bar in a few years.
GordonS 11y ago
I think if they are going to sell at volume, it has to be as animal feed. I just can't see enough people wanting to eat crickets themselves - but most of those people probably don't care what the animals they are eating were fed with.
ilaksh 11y ago
If there really isn't a way to do even small scale fish or eggs efficiently then we don't need to eat insects if that isn't part of our culture. There are plenty of other satisfying ways to get adequate protein, such as nuts and beans. Hundreds of millions of people live healthy lives without meat or insects. An approach to making it more tractable to meet food needs is to integrate it back into our urban/suburban environments and take advantage of advanced indoor farming which can be carefully monitored and tended by humans or robots, which can dramatically reduce resource usage for agriculture and greatly improve land use. http://tinyvillages.org http://tinyvillages.org

43 points by DanI-S 11y ago

aurizon 11y ago

I can not wait to see a 2000 pound cricket, bred for size by conventional means...;)

maxerickson 11y ago
Sorry to step on your harmless joke, but big insects can't breathe: https://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/gigantism-in-insects/ https://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/gigantism-in-in...
- Mz 11y ago
  While that exact realization did make me stop being freaked out by giant spiders in movies, technically "they can't breathe" in earth's current atmosphere. Presumably, if it was worth the expense involved, you could grow giant insects in closed biomes with higher oxygen levels and (I assume) higher atmospheric pressure. Also: Jurassic Park is BS for the same reason. The T Rex would not function in earth's current atmosphere -- at least not without tampering with their physiology and/or some kind of extra support system.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Even then they probably didn't get much bigger than a cat. http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/ http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-cou... The huge dragonflys were still only somewhere between a crow and raven in size.
    - Mz 11y ago
      Well, I don't know what the limits would be on size, but you seem to be presuming that historical limits are hard limits. I think that is as much a mistake as assuming current sizes are hard limits. It might take crazy levels of oxygen and pressure or it might be undoable, but if we were to create environments for this purpose, hell, why stick to recreating historic earth conditions?
- mrfusion 11y ago
  What if we raise them in a pure oxygen environment?
  - x5n1 11y ago
    heh heh heh
- aurizon 11y ago
  Yes, I am well aware of the spiracular limitations of existing insect breathing and blood, but a fictitious mechanism to modify the insects can also adapt their blood and oxygen circulation system to the larger sizes. Grasshoppers have nice hams - can you imagine herding 1000 pound gigantism adapted grasshoppers? What would you ride? Why Kangaroos - of course...;)

wnevets 11y ago

IIRC it's been shown that cricket farming at scale is no more effective than cow/chicken farming

turaw 11y ago
You're probably thinking of "Crickets Are Not a Free Lunch" [1]. For reference, the search terms to find that study were 'cricket farming efficiency' :) [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118785 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
DanI-S 11y ago
I'm one of the founders of Tiny Farms. I think you're probably recalling an article published in PLOS ONE last year that suggested the sustainability of crickets might not meet the hype. We were obviously very interested in the study! It turns out that the paper missed some crucial factors that make insects a sustainable, efficient protein source. I guest-wrote this post with some details; do take a look if you're interested. http://blog.exoprotein.com/crickets-vs-chicken/ http://blog.exoprotein.com/crickets-vs-chicken/
- bduerst 11y ago
  Sooo tl;dr: is that chickens use more water, produce more manure, and tend to be butchered away from the farms, but the study was still correct in it's food to protein conversions being almost the same between poultry and crickets?
  - DanI-S 11y ago
    I guess I'd summarize the feed conversion part as follows: - Crickets are slightly better than poultry at converting poultry feed into protein. - Crickets are great at converting processed grocery store waste into protein; poultry can't do this at all. - Both species are awful at converting low quality food waste (a mix of chicken poop and straw) into protein. - The efficient feed conversion of modern poultry comes only after years of research, development and breeding; the efficient feed conversion of insects comes "out of the box" and will only improve over time.

noondip 11y ago

> The tiny insects have been eaten in developing nations for centuries, but now consumers in the Western world are increasingly accepting them as an efficient and sustainable source of protein. Every food has protein in it. Bananas have protein. Tomatoes have protein. All plant foods have a complete amino acid profile fit for human consumption. In fact, protein is the easiest macronutrient to get enough of, provided caloric needs are being met. So it's perplexing why eating insects is billed as a 'sustainable source of protein'. Is it more sustainable than say, rice or potatoes?

theandrewbailey 11y ago
When you want to eat protein, what do you eat? Meat. It usually comes from livestock (chicken, pork, beef, fish, etc). Crickets are far more sustainable than those conventional sources of protein.
- noondip 11y ago
  As I had explained in the parent comment, all food has protein, so it's not necessary to specially source it from a particular food. Especially when that food appears extremely unpalatable (or am I the only one who doesn't salivate at the sight of crickets?).
  - panglott 11y ago
    The article talks about harvesting them by freeze drying them and milling them into a flour. Ultimately this is protein as a dietary supplement. People are willing to pay high prices for meat because meat is tasty and features in numerous delicious recipes, as well as being a source of protein. Crickets would have to be much, much cheaper than meat if the intended market is cricket flour for protein supplementation.
  - jqm 11y ago
    All food may have protein, but all food does not have essential amino acids (which cannot be made by your body) in the quantities required to maintain health. This is why non-meat eaters must be sure to add certain foods (or certain combination of foods) to their diet if they want to stay healthy. Not bagging on vegetarianism, but the idea you can get sufficient protein by just eating any old plant is.... wrong. And animal protein is a far easier and certain way to get essential amino acids. This from a guy who was a vegetarian for a number of years.

hendekagon 11y ago

nope

clebio 11y ago

> Farms raise seed round Pun intended??

tosseraccount 11y ago
GMOney cricket !

duncancarroll 11y ago

As someone who once owned geckos and fed them with crickets, the memory of the smell alone is enough to deter me from ever eating any cricket-based product.

felipemora 11y ago
Seafood can be quite stinky also and yet lots of people have no problem eating it.
- jonnathanson 11y ago
  Exactly. And honestly, if you've ever eaten a whole, unpeeled shrimp or prawn before, it's not too much of a stretch going from there to something like crickets. They are both arthropods. They are distantly related. They look kinda-sorta-not-too-dissimilar in their natural state. The key difference is size. There's a lot more meat in your typical prawn, and this allows you to peal and prep it in a way that distances you from its natural appearance. There's less meat inside the cricket, so you pretty much have to eat it whole, shell and all. The resulting texture is less meaty and more mealy/crunchy. In my experience eating crickets, I've always been aware that I'm eating crickets. There is no fantastic way to mitigate the texture and the mouthfeel, shy of grinding up the crickets into a powder and reconstituting them in some other form. (The texture doesn't bug me per se, but it sure does seem to bug a lot of people who've tried crickets. No pun intended.)
  - duncancarroll 11y ago
    It's possible some crickets are less stinky than others. But man, that smell... Shrimp, etc don't stink like that.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- duncancarroll 11y ago
  Sure, but I honestly can't think of a seafood product, raw or cooked that smells quite as bad as crickets do. Even when cooked they somehow retain the smell (I accidentally tried a "grashopper" taco once--turned out it was actually crickets--one bite was too much.)

taylorbuley 11y ago

Unfortunately for them this reminds me of pigeons! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-and-the-ponzi-scheme-that-shook-canada.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-a...

SatoshiRoberts 11y ago

Chocolate dipped crickets actually doesn't sound that bad. It could be a hipster's crunch bar in a few years.

GordonS 11y ago

I think if they are going to sell at volume, it has to be as animal feed. I just can't see enough people wanting to eat crickets themselves - but most of those people probably don't care what the animals they are eating were fed with.

ilaksh 11y ago

If there really isn't a way to do even small scale fish or eggs efficiently then we don't need to eat insects if that isn't part of our culture. There are plenty of other satisfying ways to get adequate protein, such as nuts and beans. Hundreds of millions of people live healthy lives without meat or insects. An approach to making it more tractable to meet food needs is to integrate it back into our urban/suburban environments and take advantage of advanced indoor farming which can be carefully monitored and tended by humans or robots, which can dramatically reduce resource usage for agriculture and greatly improve land use. http://tinyvillages.org http://tinyvillages.org