3D printing demonstration

Summary

MLA has recently evaluated 3D Printed foods as a potential high valued opportunity to grow demand for red meat and is actively seeking partners to further the research and bring to life this platform (V.RMH.0034, V.RMH.0039, V.RMH.0056)

This project investigated CryoLithography (frozen liquid) with 3D Printing to develop proof of concept meat products.  Work was undertakn by USA start-up RS3DPRINT LLC in conjunction with Berkeley University students.

Food 3D printing appears to be primarily paste printing with most of this relying on the viscous nature of the food to hold shape prior to further cooking or use, meat ink being the same. The only products that currently employ a 'setting/fixing phase' is chocolate and sugar, which both employ crystallisation (chocolate with fat).

It is highly likely that meat could be 'fixed' as discussed in V.RMH.0034, the Queensland University report (Godoi and Sangeeta) using its natural constituents.  An alternative maybe to add a thickening agent (around 0.2% w/w) or using a blended gum like alginate and lightly misting a calcium chloride solution over the printed material, fixing it within a few seconds. These options do not eliminate the issue of needing to screen the material, which is the current substantial bottleneck in preparing 3D printed meat ink.
The solution may be to print with larger nozzles and being smart about the designs utilised. Benefits of doing this are that it substantially reduces the 3D printing time while reducing blockages. This also enables developing some in-house design expertise to leverage for marketing purposes. This may be a very good solution for meat in the interim and will simplify the preparation to just emulsification and pod filling, both of which can be done in minutes compared to multiple hours for screening.

The limitation will be the design detail that can be achieved using a 2.0 mm instead of a 1.2 mm nozzle.  For meat type products, it is considered that this level of detail is not necessary, and therefore not seen to impact any of the current designs available.  As a first step, discussions with several of the 3D printer manufacturers could be held to assess the feasibility (Note that Foodini 3D printers use a wide range of nozzle sizes from 0.5 mm upwards).
A successful process was developed to produce 40 pods of 3D printing meat ink. The main challenge with the process developed is the time and effort required to screen oversized connective tissues and fat, noting that this step in the process is the most crucial.

It is recommended that consideration be given to the design prints required, as increasing nozzle size could be achieved, eliminating the screening step through clever drawing design. This would also give MLA in-house marketing skill to leverage in advancing 3D printing of meat.

The project has successfully completed the acquisition, trialling and evaluation of two 3D printers.  A follow up training session was completed with key operatives at the MLA Sydney offices.  Tutorial videos and operating procedures have been compiled for both the Createbot and ByFlow 3D printers, but training is still a requirement