4 ms·

Assuming there's no way they make an egg alternative cheaper than chicken eggs, and that most non-vegans don't have any problem consuming eggs, is the market fo

Assuming there's no way they make an egg alternative cheaper than chicken eggs, and that most non-vegans don't have any problem consuming eggs, is the market for this just vegans? In other words, a much smaller market than the one for meat replacements, which have not been very successful so far? I suppose there's also the very small number of people who are allergic to eggs, but it's not clear to me based on my limited knowledge whether their bioidentical substance would get around that problem. Assuming it does, that still doesn't feel like a lot of demand. I dunno, I wish them well I guess.

mgkimsal 3y ago
If it's easier to access, it might increase the number of vegans overall. I have some vegans in my family, and while I'm not vegan myself, I find myself eating less meat overall, but still eat eggs regularly (directly and indirectly).
rsynnott 3y ago
> Assuming there's no way they make an egg alternative cheaper than chicken eggs That seems like a mildly weird assumption, at least provided you restrict it to producing albumen, which is what they're doing. There's a lot of overhead in egg production related to, well, the chicken, it seems fairly clear that an idealised maximally efficient microorganism solution could beat the chicken. Now, how close their fungus is to that I do not know. It looks like they're targeting industrial food production, and that's price sensitive, so they can't be a million miles away, cost-wise (there are plenty of fairly cheap albumen substitutes already used in food production, though they're suboptimal).
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Right, it's the main assumption I'm making here. I'm basing it on all the predictions around meat substitutes getting cheaper as they mature and scale up, which have not panned out so far. And, more broadly, the tendency for startups to make such claims with the best intentions but a rather poor track record. The narrative tends to change from "we believe we can get the cost down" to "this is a premium product, people will pay more for this". We'll see I guess. A chicken egg at a grocery store right now costs about $.25, so that's the number to beat.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Most meat substitutes are _way_ more complex than producing a single protein, tho (though, one of the oldest, quorn, is pretty much just a simple fungus-produced protein with other stuff added later, and I think is cheaper by weight than most meat). > A chicken egg at a grocery store right now costs about $.25, so that's the number to beat. Well, not really; they're producing albumen for industrial use, so there's some extra processing that that egg has to undergo that they get to skip. I would wonder also can they charge a small premium for what is presumably a much more consistent product; they shouldn't have to worry about bits of egg shell or blood spots or differing densities or all the other complexities that come from using a natural product.

mgkimsal 3y ago

If it's easier to access, it might increase the number of vegans overall. I have some vegans in my family, and while I'm not vegan myself, I find myself eating less meat overall, but still eat eggs regularly (directly and indirectly).

rsynnott 3y ago

> Assuming there's no way they make an egg alternative cheaper than chicken eggs That seems like a mildly weird assumption, at least provided you restrict it to producing albumen, which is what they're doing. There's a lot of overhead in egg production related to, well, the chicken, it seems fairly clear that an idealised maximally efficient microorganism solution could beat the chicken. Now, how close their fungus is to that I do not know. It looks like they're targeting industrial food production, and that's price sensitive, so they can't be a million miles away, cost-wise (there are plenty of fairly cheap albumen substitutes already used in food production, though they're suboptimal).

karaterobot 3y ago
Right, it's the main assumption I'm making here. I'm basing it on all the predictions around meat substitutes getting cheaper as they mature and scale up, which have not panned out so far. And, more broadly, the tendency for startups to make such claims with the best intentions but a rather poor track record. The narrative tends to change from "we believe we can get the cost down" to "this is a premium product, people will pay more for this". We'll see I guess. A chicken egg at a grocery store right now costs about $.25, so that's the number to beat.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Most meat substitutes are _way_ more complex than producing a single protein, tho (though, one of the oldest, quorn, is pretty much just a simple fungus-produced protein with other stuff added later, and I think is cheaper by weight than most meat). > A chicken egg at a grocery store right now costs about $.25, so that's the number to beat. Well, not really; they're producing albumen for industrial use, so there's some extra processing that that egg has to undergo that they get to skip. I would wonder also can they charge a small premium for what is presumably a much more consistent product; they shouldn't have to worry about bits of egg shell or blood spots or differing densities or all the other complexities that come from using a natural product.