agriculture
The Soil Is No Longer a Deposit, But a Cycle
The soil, traditionally conceived as a biomass reserve, is undergoing a structural transformation. The investment by MHP in insect proteins is not a simple diversification project, but an attempt to rewrite the paradigm of nutrient cycles. The production of 400 tons annually of insect proteins, planned by 2030, does not rely on additional cultivation, but on a recycling process of food waste. This implies that the soil is no longer a starting point, but a node of recycling. The physical data of 100,000 tons of food waste treated annually indicates a material flow that no longer passes through the traditional agricultural cycle, but is directed towards a biological conversion system. The emerging tension is not between production and consumption, but between the linear waste management model and a circular recovery energy model.
Consequently, the value of the soil is no longer measured in tons of grain produced, but in the capacity to buffer organic waste. The soil becomes an energy recycling system, where biomass is not produced, but reconverted. This implies a reduction in the rate of extraction from the soil, since the raw material is not extracted, but recovered. The system does not require new cultivation, but a network of waste collection and treatment. The marginal cost is not linked to production, but to the logistics of recovery. At this point, the fundamental question arises: who supports the cost of waste collection and transportation, and how does this impact affect the thermodynamic efficiency balance?
The Critical Flow: From Waste to Resource
The process of converting food waste into insect proteins is a critical flow operating at the level of energy efficiency. The black soldier fly, used by MHP, has a biomass conversion rate of approximately 1.5 kg of insects per kg of food waste. This means that 100,000 tons of waste can generate up to 150,000 tons of insect biomass, although the actual production is limited to 400 tons annually. The difference is not due to inefficiency, but to a strategic choice of scale. The system is designed to operate in a buffer regime, where the treatment capacity exceeds the actual production to manage waste peaks.
This implies a tension between treatment capacity and actual production. The system is not optimized for maximizing production, but for ensuring the stability of the flow. The treatment capacity of 100,000 tons annually is an indicator of resilience, not of output. The marginal cost is not linked to production, but to the management of the waste flow. If the waste flow decreases, the system does not produce more, but adapts. If it increases, the system can absorb the peak thanks to the buffer capacity. This implies that the value of the system is not in the final product, but in the capacity to maintain a stable material flow. The data of 400 tons annually is not a production target, but a stable output level in a variable flow context.
The System Threshold: The Limit of Recovery
The recycling system has a physical threshold: the availability of treatable food waste. In Ukraine, the rate of agricultural biomass loss is estimated around 23%, with maize being the most affected crop. This means that approximately 23 million tons of maize are lost annually. The MHP system, with a treatment capacity of 100,000 tons, represents only 0.4% of the total losses. This implies that the system is not capable of managing the total waste flow, but only a marginal portion. The threshold is not technical, but geographical and logistical.
The treatment capacity of 100,000 tons annually is limited by the collection network and the volume of available waste. If the waste flow exceeds this threshold, the system cannot increase production, but must interrupt the process. This implies that the system is not linearly scalable. The threshold is physical: it is not possible to increase production without increasing collection. The emerging tension is not between demand and supply, but between collection capacity and treatment capacity. The system is designed to operate below the threshold, not to surpass it. This implies that the value of the system is not in production, but in the capacity to maintain a stable flow below the threshold.
Implications for the Decision Maker: The Cost of the Buffer
For the decision maker, the value of the system is not in the final product, but in the cost of the buffer. The MHP system does not produce 400 tons of insect proteins to sell, but to ensure the stability of the waste flow. The marginal cost is not linked to production, but to the logistics of recovery. The cost of collecting and transporting food waste is estimated at approximately 40 €/ton. For 100,000 tons, this represents a cost of 4 million €/year. This cost is borne by the system, not by the market.
The operational consequence is that the system is not profitable in terms of production, but in terms of stability. The value of the system is in maintaining a stable material flow, not in the final product. The profit margin is not linked to the sale of proteins, but to the reduction in the cost of waste disposal. The system reduces the disposal cost of 100,000 tons of waste, which at an average cost of 60 €/ton, represents a saving of 6 million €/year. The system generates a surplus of 2 million €/year, not for production, but for flow management. The decision maker must evaluate the system not as a production project, but as a risk management system.
Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash
The texts are autonomously generated by AI models