Macroalgae Farming: A Strategy for Economic Growth and Nutrient Mitigation
Repository Usage Stats
Macroalgae Farming: A Strategy for Economic Growth and Nutrient Mitigation Executive Summary Alyson Myers April 2015 Email: email@example.com The estuarine system of the Chesapeake Bay has experienced a “tragedy of the commons” through nutrient loading, degraded oxygen levels for marine life and a decrease in system function for the Bay watersheds’ inhabitants. The US government has called for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. This paper proposes an aquaculture practice that may assist that goal, macroalgae (seaweed) farming, which can convert excess nutrients to biomass for harvest and conversion to economic goods. While this practice cannot fix our nutrient problem--nutrients should be stopped at their sources, like farm fields, hardscape, power plants and automobile tailpipes--it can quantitatively reduce nutrients in the waterway. This paper examines macroalgae farming for the practice’s production capability per square meter (tissue contains 3-5% Nitrogen, .01% Phosphorus, and 30% Carbon) in the waterway and as a method to meet regulatory goals of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA calls for the “development of non-traditional Best Management Practices like algal scrubbers.” Similarly, NOAA refers to Ecosystem-based Management as a national priority and the “potential for aquaculture of shellfish and seaweed (algae) to mitigate impacts of climate change (e.g., sequestering carbon, bioextraction).” The farming process extracts nutrients through harvest and is sustainable by growing a biomass in waterways rather than relying, like agriculture, on fresh water (irrigation currently uses 60% of global fresh water which is not sustainable). Further, the practice does not use arable land, which is increasingly under pressure from growing populations and energy crops. Macroalgae farming is an established 6 billion dollar industry worldwide. The biggest use is human consumption followed by markets such as cosmetics, aquaculture feed, agar and carrageenan, iodine, fertilizers and more. The global production of farmed seaweed doubled between 2000 and 2012. This paper recommends several niche markets that can make the enterprise profitable in the US. Nutrient trading also provides a revenue stream with current prices for nitrogen removal at $8/lb to $20/lb. It compares this price to other methods of nitrogen removal including Wastewater Treatment upgrades and agricultural practices (cover crops, etc). Production costs of macroalgae biomass, according to the literature and this author in the field, vary between $6.60/lb and $42/lb for nitrogen removal. Nutrient trading can probably not cover the cost of the practice, and therefore we must look to the private sector to monetize the biomass. The government could decide to engage in a Public-Private Partnership to fund the strategy initially until the private sector undertakes the business enterprise with no further funding necessary. The paper explores one scenario under which a Bay state, Virginia, may mitigate its atmospheric nutrient load (1%, or 578,001 pounds of Nitrogen), for which there are no Best Management Practices, by dedicating 3.8 square miles to the enterprise. The practice would result in 107, 037, 222 lbs of wet biomass available for use by markets. The government spends approximately $.5 billion/yr to restore the Chesapeake Bay with only modest success. A dedication of 5%, or $25,000,000, would initiate the enterprise and, within two to three years could possibly be self-sustaining, with an increase in jobs and sustainable biomass for the economy. Such a project would provide a model for Restoration of the Commons, or restorative commerce, and could be implemented in eutrophic waterways around the globe. Conclusions: 1. Macroalgae farming provides a way to harvest nutrients in eutrophic waterways 2. Atmospheric deposition has no Best Management Practice for mitigation 3. Macroalgae farming can mitigate, as an example, 1% of Virginia’s TMDL (atmospheric) through dedication of 3.8 sq mi of Chesapeake Bay 4. The harvested biomass can provide material for markets, like cosmetics, consumer fertilizer, and specialty papers. 5. Macroalgae farming cannot “fix” the nutrient problem of eutrophic waterways (too much marine space would be required), but it can positively impact the problem 6. Macroalgae outcompete microalgae, the cause of dead zones, and farming operations should be located close to nutrient hotspots, but beyond Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (which provides oxygen) 7. Biomass harvest must be timed to take advantage of oxygen production and avoid decomposition 8. A macroalgae farm can potentially lead to a profitable business venture and a productive public-private partnership.
CitationMyers, Alyson (2015). Macroalgae Farming: A Strategy for Economic Growth and Nutrient Mitigation. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9706.
More InfoShow full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment