Tech
Fermented fibers could tackle both world hunger and fashion waste
A fermentation byproduct might help to solve two major global challenges: world hunger and the environmental impact of fast fashion. The leftover yeast from brewing beer, wine or even to make some pharmaceuticals can be repurposed to produce high-performance fibers stronger than natural fibers with significantly less environmental impact, according to a new study led by researchers at Penn State and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The yeast biomass—composed of proteins, fatty molecules called lipids and sugars—left over from alcohol and pharmaceutical production is regarded as waste, but lead author Melik Demirel, Pearce Professor of Engineering and Huck Chair in Biomimetic Materials at Penn State, said his team realized they could repurpose the material to make fibers using a previously developed process.
The researchers successfully achieved pilot-scale production of the fiber—producing more than 1,000 pounds—in a factory in Germany, with continuous and batch production for more than 100 hours per run of fiber spinning.
They also used data collected during this production for a lifecycle assessment, which assessed the needs and impact of the product from obtaining the raw fermentation byproduct through its life to disposal and its cost, and to evaluate the economic viability of the technology. The analysis predicted the cost, water use, production output, greenhouse gas emissions and more at every stage.
Ultimately, the researchers found that the commercial-scale production of the fermentation-based fiber could compete with wool and other fibers at scale but with considerably fewer resources, including far less land—even when accounting for the land needed to grow the crops used in the fermentation processes that eventually produce the yeast biomass.
“Just as hunter-gatherers domesticated sheep for wool 11,000 years ago, we’re domesticating yeast for a fiber that could shift the agricultural lens to focus far more resources to food crops,” said Demirel, who is also affiliated with the Materials Research Institute and the Institute of Energy and the Environment, both at Penn State.
“We successfully demonstrated that this material can be made cheaply—for $6 or less per kilogram, which is about 2.2 pounds, compared to wool’s $10 to $12 per kilogram—with significantly less water and land but improved performance compared to any other natural or processed fibers, while also nearly eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. The saved resources could be applied elsewhere, like repurposing land to grow food crops.”
Waste not, want not
Demirel’s team has spent over a decade developing a process to produce a fiber from proteins. Inspired by nature, the fiber is durable and free of the chemicals other fibers can leave in the environment for years.
“We can pull the proteins as an aggregate—mimicking naturally occurring protein accumulations called amyloids—from the yeast, dissolve the resulting pulp in a solution, and push that through a device called a spinneret that uses tiny spigots to make continuous fibers,” Demirel said, explaining the fibers are then washed, dried and spun into yarn that can then be woven into fabric for clothes.
He also noted that the fibers are biodegradable, meaning they would break down after disposal, unlike the millions of tons of polyester clothing discarded every year that pollutes the planet.
“The key is the solution used to dissolve the pulp. This solvent is the same one used to produce Lyocell, the fiber derived from cellulose, or wood pulp. We can recover 99.6% of the solvent used to reuse it in future production cycles.”
The idea of using proteins to make fiber is not new, according to Demirel, who pointed to Lanital as an example. The material was developed in the 1930s from milk protein, but it fell out of fashion due to low strength with the advent of polyester.
“The issue has always been performance and cost,” Demirel said, noting the mid-20th century also saw the invention of fibers made from peanut proteins and from corn proteins before cheap and stronger polyester ultimately reigned.
Freeing land from fiber to produce food
Beyond producing a quality fiber, Demirel said, the study also indicated the fiber’s potential on a commercial scale. The models rolled their pilot-scale findings into simulated scenarios of commercial production. For comparison, about 55,000 pounds of cotton are produced globally every year and just 2.2 pounds—about what it takes to make one T-shirt and one pair of jeans—requires up to 2,642 gallons of water. Raw cotton is relatively cheap, Demirel said, but the environmental cost is staggering.
“Cotton crops also use about 88 million acres, of farmable land around the world—just under 40% of that is in India, which ranks as ‘serious’ on the Global Hunger Index,” Demirel said.
“Imagine if instead of growing cotton, that land, water, resources and energy could be used to produce crops that could feed people. It’s not quite as simple as that, but this analysis demonstrated that biomanufactured fibers require significantly less land, water and other resources to produce, so it’s feasible to picture how shifting from crop-based fibers could free up a significant amount of land for food production.”
In 2024, 733 million people—about one in 12—around the world faced food insecurity, a continued trend that has led the United Nations to declare a goal of Zero Hunger to eliminate this issue by 2030. One potential solution may be to free land currently used to grow fiber crops to produce more food crops, according to Demirel.
Current production methods not only use significant resources, he said, but more than 66% of clothing produced annually in the U.S. alone ends up in landfills. Demirel’s approach offers a solution for both problems, he said.
“By leveraging biomanufacturing, we can produce sustainable, high-performance fibers that do not compete with food crops for land, water or nutrients,” Demirel said. “Adopting biomanufacturing-based protein fibers would mark a significant advancement towards a future where fiber needs are fulfilled without compromising the planet’s capacity to nourish its growing population. We can make significant strides towards achieving the Zero Hunger goal, ensuring everyone can access nutritious food while promoting sustainable development goals.”
Future of fiber
Demirel said the team plans to further investigate the viability of fermentation-based fibers at a commercial scale.
The team includes Benjamin Allen, chief technology officer, and Balijit Ghotra, Tandem Repeat Technologies, Inc., the spin-off company founded by Demirel and Allen based on this fiber production approach. The work has a patent pending, and the Penn State Office of Technology Transfer licensed the technology to Tandem Repeat Technologies. Other co-authors include Birgit Kosan, Philipp Köhler, Marcus Krieg, Christoph Kindler and Michael Sturm, all with the Thüringisches Institut für Textil- und Kunststoff-Forschung (TITK) e. V. in Germany.
“In my lab at Penn State, we demonstrated we could physically make the fiber,” Demirel said. “In this pilot production at the factory, together with Tandem and TITK, we demonstrated we could make the fiber a contender in the global fiber market. Sonachic, an online brand formed by Tandem Repeat, makes this a reality. Next, we will bring it to mass market.”
More information:
Impact of biomanufacturing protein fibers on achieving sustainable development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2025). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2508931122
Citation:
Fermented fibers could tackle both world hunger and fashion waste (2025, November 3)
retrieved 3 November 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-10-fermented-fibers-tackle-world-hunger.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
All of Apple’s processors are scattered throughout different MacBook models. While Apple only currently sells M4 MacBooks, you can find older models at specific third-party retailers online, either completely new or refurbished. If you do stumble upon its older chips (which came out four years ago), you might be wondering how they compare to other options. We break down the differences between each one.
M5 Series
M5: The rollout of the M5 line of chips has just started. The base M5 still has up to a 10-core CPU and 10-core GPU, although there’s also a lower-tier 9-core CPU that’s available in the iPad Pro—and presumably, that’ll also be offered in the M5 MacBook Air at some point. The M5 is around 10 to 15 percent faster in CPU performance, but also takes a significant step up in GPU, AI workloads, and even storage speed.
M4 Series
M4: The M4 originally launched in 2024. It has a 10-core CPU and a 10-core GPU. Apple claims it delivers 1.8 times faster CPU performance and 2.2 times faster GPU performance than the M1. Meanwhile, the neural engine is over three times faster than the original and twice as fast as the M3. It also starts with 16 GB of unified memory, which will help power Apple Intelligence (the company’s suite of artificial intelligence features) a lot more smoothly. It’s available on the 14-inch MacBook Pro (2024), iMac (2024), and MacBook Air (13-inch and 15-inch, 2025).
M4 Pro: The M4 Pro has a 14-core CPU (which Apple claims is up to 1.9 times faster than the M1 Pro) and up to a 20-core GPU, with up to 64 GB of unified memory. Built on a second-generation 3-nanometer process, it also supports enhanced GPU features like mesh shading and ray tracing—the latter of which is now twice as fast as on M3 chips. You’ll find it on the latest MacBook Pro (14-inch and 16-inch) and Mac Mini (2024).
M4 Max: This chip has a 16-core CPU and up to a 40-core GPU with support for up to 128 GB of unified memory. Apple says the CPU is up to 2.2 times faster than the M1 Max, while the GPU is up to 1.9 times faster. As with the M4 Pro, it packs support for mesh shading and ray tracing. The M4 Max is currently the most powerful chip you can get in a MacBook, and is available on the latest 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro. You can also get it as an option in the current Mac Studio.
M3 Series
M3: The M3 is available on the 14-inch MacBook Pro (late 2023), 13-inch MacBook Air (2024), 15-inch MacBook Air (2024), and 24-inch iMac (2023). It packs an 8-core CPU and up to a 10-core GPU with 24 GB of unified memory. When compared to the M1, Apple claims CPU performance is up to 35 percent faster, and GPU performance is up to 65 percent faster. The company says the CPU and GPU are both 20 percent faster than the M2. As with the M1 and M2, it’s great for basic tasks like word processing, sending emails, using spreadsheets, and light gaming. With the 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Air, you also have support for two external displays (one display with up to 6K resolution at 60 Hz and another with up to 5K resolution at 60 Hz).
M3 Pro: With a 12-core CPU and an 18-core GPU, Apple claims the M3 Pro’s GPU is only up to 10 percent faster than the M2 Pro—making this a marginal upgrade from its predecessor. Compared to the M1 Pro, however, the M2 Pro is up to 40 percent faster in GPU performance and 20 percent faster in CPU performance. It’s available on the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro from 2023. It’s the ideal in-between for those who need a chip that’s more powerful than the M3 but won’t utilize the full power of the M3 Max.
M3 Max: This is the next step up from the M2 Max and the most powerful of the three chips (but still not as powerful as the M2 Ultra). It has a 16-core CPU, 40-core GPU, and up to 128 GB of unified memory. According to Apple, the CPU performance is up to 80 percent faster than the M1 Max and up to 50 percent faster than the M2 Max. As for GPU performance, it’s said to be up to 50 percent faster than the M1 Max and 20 percent faster than the M2 Max. The M3 Max is available on the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro (late 2023).
M3 Ultra: While the M3 lineup was introduced in 2023, Apple announced an M3 Ultra in 2025. Confusingly, it remains the most powerful chip in the M-series lineup—even better than the latest M4 Max and M5. It has an up to 32-core CPU (with 24 performance cores) and a GPU with up to 80 cores. Apple claims it’s up to 2.5 times faster than the M1 Ultra. It also comes with 96 GB of unified memory, with the option to upgrade up to 512 GB, while SSD storage can be increased to 16 GB. This chip is currently only available on the 2025 Mac Studio.
M2 Series
M2: You might think the M2 is better than the M1 Pro or M1 Max, but you’d be wrong. It’s an entry-level chip like the M1, with slightly more processing power. It packs an 8-core CPU and up to a 10-core GPU (two more GPU cores than its predecessor), along with support for up to 24 GB of unified memory. Apple says the second-generation chip has an 18 percent faster CPU and a GPU that’s 35 percent more powerful. The M2 is great for daily tasks like word processing and web browsing, but tasks like editing multiple streams of 4K footage and 3D rendering should be reserved for the M1 Pro or M1 Max (or the next two chips). It’s available in the MacBook Air (13-inch, 2022), MacBook Air (15-inch, 2022), and MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2022).
M2 Pro: The M2 Pro is the next step up from the M2. It has up to 12 cores in the CPU and up to a 19-core GPU, with up to 32 GB of unified memory. Apple claims performance is up to 20 percent faster than the 10-core M1 Pro and graphics are 30 percent faster. We recommend this chip for intermediate video and photo editors. It’s a marginal upgrade compared to the M1 Pro, but it’s the best option for those who want a more future-proof processor. You’ll find it in the MacBook Pro (14-inch and 16-inch) from early 2023 and the Mac Mini (2023).
M2 Max: The M2 Max packs up to a 12-core CPU and up to a 38-core GPU (with support for up to 96 GB of unified memory). According to Apple, graphics are 30 percent faster than the M1 Max. The M2 Max is an excellent choice for those who work with graphics-intensive content, including graphic design, 3D modeling, and heavy-duty video footage. But as with the M2 Pro, it’s an incremental upgrade if you’re coming from an M1 Max. It’s available in the MacBook Pro (14-inch and 16-inch) that came out early in 2023 and the Mac Studio (2023).
M2 Ultra: This is the successor to the M1 Ultra. It’s available on the second-generation Mac Studio and the Mac Pro (2023). Composed of two M2 Max chips, using Apple’s UltraFusion technology, the M2 Ultra has a 24-core CPU and a GPU configurable with 60 or 76 cores. Apple claims the CPU delivers up to 20 percent faster performance and a 30 percent faster GPU than the M1 Ultra. This is the chip to get if you’re working with extremely heavy-duty content that you believe the M1 Ultra, M2 Pro, or M2 Max simply won’t be able to handle. You’ll know if you need a chip this robust.
M1 Series
M1: Shockingly, Apple continues to sell the M1 MacBook Air through Walmart for just $599, which is a killer price for this laptop. This was the first custom silicon Apple debuted for its MacBook Air in 2020. It has an 8-core CPU and up to an 8-core GPU. Originally, there was support for up to 16 GB of unified memory (RAM) at an extra cost, but nowadays you can only purchase the 8-GB model. It’s much faster than any previous Intel-powered MacBook Pro, and it is the practical choice for most people, as it’s inside the most affordable MacBook Air you can buy (from third-party retailers). It packs more than enough processing power to get you through common day-to-day tasks, even light gaming, and it can handle more intense jobs like photo editing.
M1 Pro: From there, the next step up was the M1 Pro. It has up to 10 cores in the CPU and up to a 16-core GPU, with up to 32 GB of unified memory. Apple says performance and graphics are both twice as fast as on the M1. We found it to be considerably more capable than the base chip, ideal for anyone who works heavily on MacBooks for music production or photo and video editing. Only the MacBook Pro (14-inch and 16-inch) from 2021 uses this chip.
M1 Max: Like the M1 Pro, the M1 Max has a 10-core CPU but a heftier 32-core GPU (with support for up to 64 GB of unified memory). Apple says it’s four times faster than the M1 in terms of graphics. As proven in testing, this chip is extremely powerful and handles every heavy-duty task with ease. It was the go-to choice if you needed a computer that could handle multiple streams of 8K or 4K video footage, 3D rendering, or developing apps and running demos. You probably already know whether you need this much power. It’s available in the MacBook Pro (14-inch and 16-inch) from 2021.
M1 Ultra: The M1 Ultra was the most powerful of them all. It’s two M1 Max chips connected with a technology called UltraFusion. It packs a 20-core CPU, 64-core GPU (which can be configured with up to 128 GB of unified memory), and a 32-core neural engine—complete with seven times more transistors than the base M1. Even with the M3 Ultra now available, the M1 Ultra remains powerful and a solid option for anyone who needs a heavy-duty processor for working with intense visuals and graphics. It was available only on the first-generation Mac Studio.
Americans are becoming more open to the idea that aliens have visited Earth, according to a series of polls that show belief in alien visitation has been steadily on the rise since 2012.
Almost half—47 percent—of Americans say they think aliens have definitely or probably visited Earth at some point in time, according to a new poll from YouGov conducted in November 2025 that involved 1,114 adult participants. That percentage is up from roughly a third (36 percent) of Americans polled in 2012 by Kelton Research, with the exact same sample size. Gallup published polls on this question in 2019 and 2021 that likewise show an upward trend.
Moreover, people seem to be getting off the fence on this issue, one way or the other. Just 16 percent of Americans said they were unsure if aliens had visited Earth in the new poll, down from 48 percent who were unsure in 2012. Meanwhile, even as belief in alien visitation has risen, so has doubt: The new poll shows that 37 percent of Americans said Earth likely hasn’t been visited by aliens, more than double the 17 percent logged in 2012.
It’s impossible to know exactly why Americans have become more receptive to alien visitation from these polls alone; they only include raw statistics, and lack granular details about the specific motivations for the participants’ responses.
“It’s important to note that this is a poll about belief,” says Susan Lepselter, an author and associate professor of anthropology and American Studies at Indiana University who has written extensively on alien beliefs and UFO experiences. “It’s not a poll about experience, contact, feelings—nothing like that.”
“We don’t know what their engagement is; we don’t know if their belief has been life-changing,” she adds. “We just know one thing, which is that the statistics have moved from one set of beliefs to another.”
Of course, it’s still possible—and let’s be real, fun—to speculate on the drivers of the trend. One obvious culprit is a new posture from institutional news sources, such as the US government and legacy media, which have finally started taking unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) seriously.
This shift began with the release of mysterious Pentagon UAP videos by The New York Times in 2017, and has since been accelerated by spate of Congressional hearings, and a NASA independent study on UAP. The newly released documentary The Age of Disclosure, which features claims by former military officials that the US government has covered up evidence of aliens visiting Earth, has supercharged the legitimacy to this once marginalized topic.
The UK government has admitted that IT systems at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) were hacked in October, but insists the attack had a “low risk” of personal data being compromised.
During a round of broadcast interviews today (19 December 2025), trade minister Chris Bryant said it was “not clear” who perpetrated the attack, although the first report on the hack, revealed in The Sun, attributed it to a China-based threat actor known as Storm 1849.
The same group was blamed for targeting vulnerabilities in Cisco equipment that led to a National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) warning in September for organisations using Cisco’s Adaptive Security Appliance family of unified threat management systems. Users were told to replace any devices reaching end-of-life support, noting the significant risks that ageing or obsolete hardware can pose.
Bryant said some of the reports about the FCDO hack were “speculation”, but that the government had managed to “close the hole” quickly, and that security experts were confident there was a “low risk” of any individual being affected. The Sun report claimed hackers accessed confidential data and documents, possibly including thousands of visa details.
The Storm 1849 attack campaign on Cisco equipment was dubbed ArcaneDoor, and targeted two zero-day vulnerabilities. One was a high-severity denial-of-service vulnerability capable of remote code execution; the other was a high-severity persistent local code execution vulnerability.
While government IT systems always face scrutiny over cyber security, the hack will provide further fuel for critics of plans to introduce a national digital ID scheme, many of whom have already raised concerns about the potential risks of gathering citizen identity data.
The development also comes a day after ITV News broadcast a report on the cyber security issues found in One Login – the government single sign-on system that will be at the heart of the digital ID plan – which were first revealed by Computer Weekly in April.
Damaging year
2025 has been a notably damaging year for cyber attacks, with high-profile ransomware campaigns affecting Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), the Co-op and Marks & Spencer.
The Office for National Statistics attributed a November decline in the UK’s economy partly to the impact of the JLR attack, which stopped car production at the manufacturer and had a knock-on impact across the automotive supply chain.
Last month, four London councils – Kensington and Chelsea; Hackney; Westminster; and Hammersmith and Fulham – suffered cyber attacks, disrupting services and prompting an NCSC investigation. Westminster has since admitted that potentially sensitive data was copied from its systems during the hack. Three of the local authorities operate a shared IT service.
For Jake Paul, Anthony Joshua represents a new kind of opportunity
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle release surprise video alongside holiday cards
Nigeria’s textile imports up 47.43% YoY in Jan-Sept 2025
-
Business6 days agoHitting The ‘High Notes’ In Ties: Nepal Set To Lift Ban On Indian Bills Above ₹100
-
Politics1 week agoTrump launches gold card programme for expedited visas with a $1m price tag
-
Business1 week agoRivian turns to AI, autonomy to woo investors as EV sales stall
-
Sports1 week agoU.S. House passes bill to combat stadium drones
-
Sports1 week agoPolice detain Michigan head football coach Sherrone Moore after firing, salacious details emerge: report
-
Fashion1 week agoTommy Hilfiger appoints Sergio Pérez as global menswear ambassador
-
Business1 week agoCoca-Cola taps COO Henrique Braun to replace James Quincey as CEO in 2026
-
Tech1 week agoGoogle DeepMind partners with UK government to deliver AI | Computer Weekly