2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.113
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Autotrophic and heterotrophic microalgae and cyanobacteria cultivation for food and feed: life cycle assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
96
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 227 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
5
96
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Microalgae-based proteins have low land requirements compared to animal-based proteins: <2.5 m 2 per kg of protein ( 20 ) compared to 47–64 m 2 for pork, 42–52 m 2 for chicken, and 144–258 m 2 for beef production ( 21 ). Land requirements are also lower than for some other plant-based proteins used for food and feed such as soybean meal, pea protein meal, and others ( 22 ). Furthermore, the usage of non-arable land for cultivation, minimal fresh water consumption, the possibility of growing in seawater, and the potential replacement of non-sustainable soy imports are some advantages of algae over other plant-based protein sources ( 23 ).…”
Section: Microalgae As a Source Of Proteins And Other Nutritional Commentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microalgae-based proteins have low land requirements compared to animal-based proteins: <2.5 m 2 per kg of protein ( 20 ) compared to 47–64 m 2 for pork, 42–52 m 2 for chicken, and 144–258 m 2 for beef production ( 21 ). Land requirements are also lower than for some other plant-based proteins used for food and feed such as soybean meal, pea protein meal, and others ( 22 ). Furthermore, the usage of non-arable land for cultivation, minimal fresh water consumption, the possibility of growing in seawater, and the potential replacement of non-sustainable soy imports are some advantages of algae over other plant-based protein sources ( 23 ).…”
Section: Microalgae As a Source Of Proteins And Other Nutritional Commentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e sustainability benefits are associated with a localized production potential using marginal amounts of land for production in tanks on land (as demonstrated by various companies in Western Europe which are producing spirulina (e.g., Roquette-Klötze in Klötze (Saxony-Anhalt), Germany)), allowing for increased independence from soy imports that require high land occupation [21] and cause greenhouse gas emissions through long transportation routes [22]. To date, the technology is still in its infancy stages and the sustainability remains dependent on production conditions [23], but improvements to production technology can be implemented to make microalgae more sustainable in the future (e.g., usage of renewable energy to operate photo bioreactors) [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Depending on the data used and assumptions made, for example, on productivity, content of fatty acids, proteins and polysaccharides, and energy requirement, the energy return on investment (EROI) varies from 0.01 to 3.35 (Ketzer, Skarka, & Rösch, 2018;Weiss, 2016). The highest environmental impact on the global warming potential of algae cultivation in PBRs is related to the consumption of energy, especially electricity for mixing, temperature control, as well as-depending on the concept-lighting (Mok & Rösch, 2017;Smetana, Sandmann, Rohn, Pleissner, & Heinz, 2017). These results are also applicable to food production in PBRs.…”
Section: Environmental Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%