Microbial biomass fermentation can deliver scalable, nutritious ingredients for meat alternatives. However, inconsistent reporting methods and missing measurements are slowing commercialization. This report maps more than 200 fermentation treatments across 40 sources (2011–2024) to highlight where the evidence exists, and where the field must improve to scale reliably. We reviewed the academic literature to create a structured dataset that captures strains, substrates, bioprocess parameters, nutritional composition, and functional properties for biomass fermentations (SmF & SSF) intended for human food.

Key findings

• Low microbial and feedstock diversity: A few versatile species (e.g., Aspergillus oryzae, Rhizopus oligosporus) dominate the field, while most remain underexplored. Substrate diversity is high, especially with agro-industrial side-streams, but systematic comparisons are limited.

• Incomplete reporting on commercial levers: Core process variables (temperature, time) are usually reported, but others like titer and yield are often missing, a critical gap for techno-economic assessment.

• Nutritional blind spots: Protein content is reported in ~70% of studies, yet fats, carbohydrates, and especially RNA levels within samples (reported in ~2% of cases) are rarely measured, with potential safety and regulatory implications.

• Functional properties rarely measured: Water-holding, gelation, emulsification and other functional metrics are missing from most studies, blocking product formulation work.

Why this matters

Without standardized reporting and a central knowledge base, teams repeat experiments, waste resources, and face unexpected regulatory or scale-up obstacles. A consolidated dataset and minimal reporting standard would accelerate R&D, enable realistic TEAs, and shorten the path from lab to market.

Read full report