Q: Are you an 'AgTech' company?

A: No, we are are an 'Alt Protein' company. The Automated Selective Harvesters ('Harvesta') robotic technology is how we secure a low-cost proprietary feedstock that we monetize to the benefit of the planter (farmer) and ourselves. The data offer ('Intellia') is being developed to further improve farmer productivity and further enhance positive environmental benefits. You could also argue we are a 'biotech' company due to our 'Reacta' process, though the ingredients we produce have 'minimal' processing (Nova Group 1, although subsequent products may be Nova Group 2) so they retain their goodness. So, while we create a long-term competitive advantage using a sophisticated bundle of integrated technologies that represents a defensible 'moat', we are essentially a food ingredient company focused on the global alternative protein market estimated at US$15.29 billion in 2023 and expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.2% from 2024 to 2030.

Q: What is your unique selling point?

A: Our Automated Selective Harvester ('Harvesta') transforms broccoli production economics and allows realisation of the side stream, which would be uneconomic/impractical without it. Harvesta 'unlocks' the problem of utilisation and monetization of side stream, which allows a transformational business model. We have a granted patent for our Automated Selective Harvester (GB2608367A, US20240206393A1, EP4362656A1). Other patent filings are in progress.

We expect the insight produced from the data we gather to create further value for farmers by helping them improve productivity and reduce costs. We see this service (branded 'Intellia') as reinforcing the value we offer and the advantage of working with us.

In addition a patent has been filed for protein production (GB2408157.2) and our 'Reacta' process and key ingredient ("Bia") are trade secrets. Other patents are in development.

Q: How do you work with farmers?

A: We deliver robotic 'Harvestas' to allow farmers to automate the harvest of heads they sell to supermarkets, while delivering to us the stem and stalk that we then process.

Broccoli is a high value crop, but it is a low margin crop. A significant factor is the cost of harvest which is driven by current manual harvesting practice and the requirement for multiple 'passes' over the same field. The increase in casual labour rates are a major driver of farmgate inflation. Addressing this through automation will improve crop profitability for the farmer.

We also help farmers by overcoming a critical constraint i.e., constrained harvest capacity due to availability of casual labour. Broccoli may be left unharvested due to lack of casual labour, and Harvesta can overcome that.

In addition, broccoli may be left unharvested due to a glut, in which case we can take that crop (including head, stem and stalk) and turn it in to product, so let the farmer make something from crop that would otherwise be a total loss.

Our estimate is that, in total, there is up to 5x more broccoli biomass available than currently makes it to the supermarket shelf, and by working with us the farmer will share in this opportunity. This high waste ratio is because more than 75% of the aboveground parts of broccoli are left in the field, and the majority of these are edible, and farmers may plant 17 plants for every 10 that are actually harvested. In addition, there may be losses due to cutting heads down to florets and also for aesthetic reasons.

We expect our harvest capacity to increase as our 'Harvesta' technology evolves, part of which is the development of the data platform ('Intellia'). This will evolve to support reporting of historic field performance with HPI (Historic Potential Index), field performance with yield map processing, harvest date prediction models and yield prediction models. We intend to improve the sensing on Harvesta to allow better selection based on characterisation of colour, and identification and reporting of disease and pests, and potentially sensing of soil characteristics. We hope that this data will allow more efficient use of fertilisers, more targeted use of insecticide, and better use of water to support regenerative agriculture, specifically with respect to soil health.

Q: How do you expect to impact crop productivity, quality and total cost?

The analysis of our data indicates that yield rates from manual harvest are not 100% (i.e., harvest of heads within target size range), and there is room to improve on yield rates to a level that could impact crop profitability.

Harvesta can be operated in the dark so crop can be harvested at night/early morning when it is less metabolically active. In addition, farmers can harvest crops with long-stems and trim them just before shipment at the packhouse. Both of these could extend product life.

Obviously the primary benefit of automation is in reducing harvest labour cost, a major driver of costs and cost inflation. In addition, a night/early-morning harvest means that the crop is cut at a lower ambient temperature reducing cooling costs at the packhouse, a major driver of power costs.

Q: Is 'Harvesta' needed to gain access to feedstock?

It is possible to use 'packhouse waste' as feedstock, but this the minority of the available feedstock, with the majority being left on the field.  Without Harvesta, it is not possible to economically access the majority of the stalk for feedstock as harvest labour is expensive and in constraint, and the stalk is low value relative to the flower. 

Manual harvest of majority of stalk would require the manual labour force to move ~5x more mass and strip the leaves by hand which would reduce harvest efficiency and compromise the product that is currently sold. It would also risk injury to the labour force in the form of RSI.  Thus to access the stem requires automation and our 'Harvesta' is the only automated selective harvester designed to harvest the stalk - others just take the head (flower).

While farmers could perform a slaughter harvest, especially as a final cut, they would risk damaging the head (which is what they currently sell); they would face the problem of removing the leaves (as leaves give any product a 'grassy' taste and have low nutritional content); and, they would have the issue of the large mound of biomass 'cooking-off' and becoming non-useable as food.

In summary, it is possible for us to produce our ingredient products without Harvesta, but the proprietary access to low-cost feedstock enabled by Harvesta transforms our business model.  Together Harvesta and Bia have considerable synergy value.

Q: What are the advantages of 'Harvesta' compared to other selective harvesters?

When assessing the potential for robotic automation, the key issue is the ‘actuator’ - human or robotic, and the comparison of the difference between them in terms of economic performance to achieve the defined task.

One of the challenges with automating the harvest of crops is that the actuator may have a maximum speed it can operate at without damaging the crops (i.e., reducing yield through damage) or missing crops (i.e., reducing yield by omission).

It is this fact that means that the use of conventional industrial robots has limited application in broccoli harvest. By way of example, having 4 industrial robots costing (say a full cost of) $70,000 each within a system that is priced to the farmer at (say) ~$700,000 and a maintenance cost of ~$100,000 will have a poor pay-back even in the productivity is better than 8 human workers at $25/h x 2,000 hours per year.

Systems based on industrial robots tend to be heavy (which impacts deployability and soil compaction), power-hungry, frequently breakdown in an agricultural environment and may require an expensive support staff to oversee them (which may not be quickly available in rural areas). It is the breakdowns and remediation that is the critical issue as once a farmer has replaced manual labour with robotics solutions downtime means lost crop.

Our approach is different, the robotics do not require 6 degrees of freedom as they are essentially performing one task and do not need the cost and complexity that enables a range of tasks or infinite variability of movement. The ‘actuator’ is a pair of light-weight food safe plastic tongs that lift the cut plant if the sensor has decided that the plant is ready for harvest and triggered a cut, and do not damage the flower as they do not touch the flower.

Our actuators are placed ready to be triggered, and crucially there are many of them that rotate on a chain. They are a low-cost item that is designed to be sacrificial if there is a stone strike and are quickly and easily field replaceable in this event. As it is, none have been damaged so far. But it is better to plan to accommodate for likely failure modes.

This approach means that our system can run fast, currently ~ 4 km/h, and we hope that it will soon be capable of 5 km/h, with a likely realistic ultimate maximum of 8km/h. There is probably no point in exceeding this speed as the crop harvest ceases to the constraining factor, and instead becomes off-load handling, the logistic chain to the packhouse and the packhouse itself.

The data so far indicates that our ability to select is at least as good as humans (human harvest typically results in an ~80% yield in terms of completeness) and we believe we can get it to the high 90’s (it will not be 100% due to occlusion). In addition, there is very limited evidence of any crop damage. Importantly, we believe that the economics of use are very compelling versus both human and robotic solutions.

So, in summary, we are different as we use a multitude of low-cost dedicated-purpose actuators that are placed such that they do not move relative to the plant, and we use computer vision to make a ‘yes’/’no’ decision, which together allows us to run fast. The alternative approach is the use of a low number of high-complexity, high-cost actuators which require advanced sensing and move relative to the plant, and which thus move slowly. Our approach is far less costly, in terms of CAPEX and maintenance, and offers the possibility of further materials cost reduction even at modest scale (tens of units). This is the unique competitive advantage of our approach, which allows faster crop harvest and intrinsically far superior economics at all unit volumes.

In addition by deploying our technology on 4-wheel drive/steer self-powered sprayer platforms we achieve a system with good ground clearance (to avoid damaging crop), an excellent turning circle which reduces issues in the field headers, that is comparatively lightweight so reduces spoil compaction, and is easier to use in mud than a trailed system.  Most importantly, it makes maintenance easier and reduces development and operational risk. 

Q: What is the commercial model behind 'Harvesta'?

A: Our commercial model is 'Harvesta-as-a-Service' ('HaaS'), requiring the planter (farmer) to grant us exclusive rights to side-stream. In our HaaS model the farmer will crew the Harvesta. Pricing is set to share the economic benefit of the harvest automation between us and the planter.

The estimated gross value per acre in the US is $6,800 for fresh market broccoli. The costs of production of broccoli vary depending the production location. It is labour-intensive, especially for harvest and post-harvest handling and packaging.

A 2020 study by the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University found that average harvest costs in New York were $1,010 per acre (of which $897 is labour), representing 22% of variable costs of $4,685 and 17% of total costs of $5,784.  Similar figures are reported in a 2023 UC Davis study.  An analysis by Bayer, a major producer of broccoli seeds, cites harvest costs per acre of $1,395 in New York (37% of total costs) to $3,624 in California (39% of total costs).  Around 110,000 acres of land are farmed with broccoli in the US, implying that total harvest costs in the US exceed $110m annually.

Similar data are not available for the UK, however employment costs in UK fresh produce businesses account for a large portion of total production costs, sometimes up to 60% for certain crops. The employment cost increases announced in the October 2024 budget are expected to raise production costs by an additional 10 to 12%, and it is likely that UK costs per acre will exceed those in the US if they do not already.  Around 7,500 acres are used in the UK to for broccoli, indicating total harvest costs of circa £7m annually. 

Given the materiality of harvest labour cost and its impact on cost inflation, and potential for cost reduction of harvest through automation, we believe that a model based on share of saving aligns incentives between ourselves and the farmer.  In addition, the farmer shares in the upside of the side-stream.  

Q: Will you sell 'Harvesta'?

A: Possibly in time, but it will still require side-stream rights to be assigned to us.

Q: What is your position on autonomy?

A: Autonomy for Harvesta is on our product roadmap. We do not see autonomy for broccoli harvest as 'controlled from the farm office' but as being supervised by an on-field worker once the worker has driven the Harvesta there. Product off-load to an accompanying vehicle will likely still require workers, so autonomy adds value by further reducing the total size of a harvest crew. It will also allow use of the use of AB lines created during automated planting in order to improve precision.

We will not build the autonomy modules ourselves but will use 'commercial-off-the-shelf' ('CotS') systems as 'bolt-on' integrations to the CotS chassis on which we deploy our automated harvest modules. Our indicative time-line is: 2026, data gathering during normal operations, 2027, in-cab oversight of autonomy; 2028 on-field oversight of autonomy.

Because we intend to integrate other companies technologies, our delivery risk of autonomy is limited and manageable.  Our main focus will be on developing and deploying the protocols to ensure safety, for instance remote 'kill switches' to allow all on-field staff to stop operations if there is any risk of harm, and ensuring that autonomy delivers economic value to the farmers.

Q: Where do you intend to operate?

A: We are starting in the UK then with Spain in the UK off-season - this is how supermarkets give 12 month access to brassicas for UK consumers. Doing this will allow us to supply food manufacturers on a 12-month-a-year basis.  In 2023 63,000 tonnes of broccoli was grown in the UK (implying over 325,000 tonnes of potential feedstock), and in 2022 ~477,000 tonnes was grown in Spain (implying 2.4m tonnes of potential feedstock).  At the European level, Spain represents 34.4% of total cauliflower and broccoli production with 677,280 tonnes. This production has been increasing over the last 10 years.

The US is our next market. In 2022 ~472,000 tonnes of broccoli were grown in the US (implying almost 2.4m tonnes of potential feedstock).  In the US, broccoli cultivation is highly concentrated with circa 90% of broccoli being grown in California over a season of up to 10 months, with a significant amount of off-season crop being grown in Arizona. For this reason we intend to focus deployment in California and Arizona.

It is likely we will franchise in the EU and the rest of the world to allow us to focus on the US opportunity.

Q: Can you work with other feedstocks?

A: We can work with cauliflower as a feedstock although we do not have an automated harvest solution for it. While cauliflower has less edible biomass left on the field post-harvest, it suffers from large packhouse losses due to a tendency to discolour when bruised or exposed to UV. This does not affect taste or nutrition, but consumers (thus retailers) will not buy it. As a result, there is significant availability of cauliflower biomass. In 2023 71,000 tonnes of cauliflower was produced in the UK, implying available biomass of a similar value. In 2020 the US produced 1,003 million pounds of cauliflower (~455,000 tonnes) and Spain approximately 200,000 tonnes.

We expect other feedstocks to follow.

Q: Are you just a low-CO2 soy substitute?

A: Even if you regard Prota and Fiba as 'just' a soy substitute, soy makes up 2/3rd ($10bn) of the $15bn global alternative protein market.  The market for soy protein isolate (a subset of the soy market) for human consumption is over $3bn. Compared to soy, our products are hypoallergenic, offer additional health benefits, can be used in a broad range of applications and we offer manufacturers an option with better environmental credentials.

We argue we are as competitive with mycelium, pea protein and egg alternatives as soy.  This is important as, for instance, egg replacements accounted for US$ 1,283.0 million of sales in 2020 and is estimated to be US$ 2,132.4 million by 2030, a CAGR of 6.60%.

Q: Do you aim to displace meat?

A: Prota and Fiba can be used in vegan or vegetarian food, or to partially displace meat, and could also be used to supplement meat alternatives, such as mycelium-based alternative proteins. We note that the Good Food Institute expects displacement of meat by alternative proteins to accelerate once alternative proteins achieve price parity or better with meat, and this is expected to occur from 2025-2032.

We aim to help meat manufacturers reduce their Scope 3 emissions and production costs through hybridization or 'blended' products. This will help them offer more planet-friendly, healthier and lower-cost products for those people that want to keep meat as part of their diet, and keep the taste and mouthfeel consumers enjoy. We are not anti-meat, we are pro CO2e reduction and for more affordable, healthier food. We believe that the principles of "improve rather than remove" and "positive action rather than moral judgement" will support the greatest net benefits in terms of GHG reduction and enhanced nutritional value for the wider community.

Q: Are your products GM free?

A:Yes, our products are genetically modified (GM) free.

We aim to give food manufacturers high-quality, nutritious, hypoallergenic vegetable protein and fibre that is grown by the farmers in that region in line with the highest of standards relevant to the jurisdiction of sale.  Because we use regionally-sourced feedstock, in the UK and EU we will be GM free as GM broccoli is not grown in the UK or Spain. 

GM broccoli is not currently used in the US and varieties available in the market are the result of traditional selective breeding, not genetic modification.  Similarly, GM cauliflower is not currently grown commercially, like broccoli, cauliflower available in the market is developed through traditional selective breeding methods rather than genetic modification. As a result, we believe that all our products will be GM free. 

Were we to use GM feedstock, we would, of course, label to indicate such.  However we have no intention or need to do so in the foreseeable future.

Q: Are your products organic?

A: No, our products are not currently organic.  However, we have a source of organic broccoli and were there to be sufficient demand could run a separate organic line.  This would result in additional costs and so would be more expensive.

Q: Are your products vegan?

A: Yes, our products are vegan.  In terms of the key elements of vegan foods:

Animal Ingredients: Our products and  their ingredients do not involve the use of any animal products, by-products, or derivatives.

Animal Testing: The development and manufacture of our products, and their ingredients, have not involved any form of animal testing conducted by the company, on its behalf, or by parties over whom the company has effective control.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): We do not use inputs from GMOs.  Were we to process GMO inputs, the GMOs will not involve animal genes or animal-derived substances. 

Cross-Contamination: We only produce vegan products, however we still take all reasonable steps to minimize cross-contamination from non-vegan substances during production.

Q: What is your capacity?

A: We are at Pilot Scale (2 tonnes per day input capacity, shortly 10 tonnes per day) at the moment, but are mobilizing scale manufacturing (~45 tonnes per day in 2026, moving to multi-00 tonnes in 2027). We have Heads-of-Terms with farmers that will allow access to over 300,000 tonnes of feedstock.

Q: What is your regulatory strategy?

A: We are currently securing ISO 9001 for Harvesta and our associated business processes.

We are currently securing HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) certification for protein production. FSSC 22000 will follow in mid-2025 to allow GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative) certification and BRC Plant is targeted by end-2025. We believe our products to be 'low risk'.

Q: Have you resolved the issues associated with accounting for Scope 3 reductions with respect to your solution?

A: Not yet, it is a challenging issue as can be seen in recent reports.

Q: How will the carbon saving be monetized and distributed?

A: Monetization of the carbon saving is currently uncertain. When it becomes certain we will work through its distribution.

Q: How much carbon will you save?

A: One of the questions is whether our products are used to displace other Alt Proteins (soy, wheat, pea. mycelium) or to supplement meat. and which types (e.g., beef versus pork). The impact of this is profound (>10x) in terms of CO2 equivalents avoided through the farm-to-fork supply chain. We need data on this which is as yet unavailable.

Also, when vegetables decompose, they produce CO2 and also methane (CH4).  Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. While specific figures for vegetables rotting in the field are not available, general estimates for food waste decomposition suggest emissions can range from 0.5 to 1.5 kg of CO2e per kilogram. We need to quantify the difference in CO2 and methane output of a field harvested manually versus one harvested using Harvesta where the side stream has been taken. We do not yet have this data, but plan to obtain it. This may vary by geography, and potentially by year, so can only ever be an estimate.

Other questions include the percentage of Necta that is used for mycelium growth versus use in an AD plant, and the impact of this on CO2e.

In aggregate, there is s strong case that we should save >1kgCO2e for every kg we process (i.e., will be "Climate Positive"), and potentially several times this. Were we only to process the 300,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum that we have at Heads of Terms, there is the potential we could impact CO2e at a level of 00s of ktons per annum. Once we are at scale, we intend to achieve carbon reduction at the megaton level.

Q: Have you had an independent LCA?

Yes, we have had an independent LCA performed by the UK Agri-Tech Centre (see this graph). Our products came out better than the products we intend to displace, however the scope excluded the impact of methane emission reduction as this is yet to be characterised. This will further improve our LCA performance. In addition, the LCA results will allow us to further improve our process, so we expect enhanced results when we next have an independent LCA. Our latest LCA can be made available under NDA to partners during Due Diligence.

Q: Will you share your ethical supply chain data?

A: Transparency is important to us. While we plan to do this, we have yet to implement a platform to achieve it.  With respect to the main areas of supply chain risk:

Labour Practices: We recognise that ensuring fair wages, safe working environments, and respecting workers' rights are critical.  We note that we are operating in, and only intend to operate in, geographic regions where labour rights are generally well-respected.

Environmental Impact: Our mission is to reduce the environmental footprint of food, including deforestation, water usage, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Animal Welfare: By producing vegan alternative proteins we avoid such issues and we reduce the issues associated with animal welfare.

Food Safety and Quality: We acknowledge that ensuring that food products are safe and of high quality is a fundamental ethical responsibility. This includes preventing contamination and ensuring proper handling and storage throughout the supply chain.  We are putting in place the relevant accreditations to demonstrate our commitment. 

Q: What is your diversity policy?

A: We are committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace where all employees feel valued, respected, and empowered. This policy outlines our commitment to diversity and inclusion and the steps we will take to ensure an equitable work environment.

We believe that diversity and inclusion drive innovation and excellence. We are committed to creating a workplace that reflects the diverse communities we serve and where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Promote Diversity: We will actively seek to recruit, retain, and promote individuals from diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and cultural background.

Foster Inclusion: We will create an inclusive environment where all employees feel welcome and valued. This includes providing promoting inclusive language, and ensuring accessibility in the workplace.

Ensure Equity: We will ensure fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all employees. This includes implementing equitable hiring practices, providing support for career development and when appropriate conducting pay equity reviews. The size of a company can significantly impact the effectiveness of a pay equity review. Generally, a meaningful pay equity analysis requires a sufficient sample size to ensure reliable and statistically significant results, and we are not yet of that size.

Leadership: Our leadership team is responsible for championing diversity and inclusion initiatives and ensuring that these values are integrated into all aspects of our business.

Managers: Managers are responsible for fostering an inclusive team culture, addressing any issues of discrimination or bias, and supporting the professional development of all team members.

Employees: All employees are expected to contribute to a respectful and inclusive workplace by treating colleagues with respect and reporting any concerns.

Q: Do you pay the Real Living Wage ('RLW')?

A: Yes. We also oppose "fire and re-hire". We will only enter in to zero-hours contracts where it is to the mutual benefit of employer and employee. The use of zero-hours contracts is rare.

Q: Are you recruiting?

A: We will always engage with people who are interested in coming on board to help us achieve our mission and are excited about what we are doing. Send in a CV! Sadly we can't respond to recruiters as we are always bombarded!

FAQs