CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Algal biology and biofuel productionEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityAquaculture Nutrition and Growth

The environmental sustainability of microalgae as feed for aquaculture: a life cycle perspective

Taelman, S.E., De Meester, S., Roef, L., Michiels, M., Dewulf, J.·2013·Bioresource Technology
DOI 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The environmental sustainability of microalgae production for aquaculture purposes was analyzed using exergy analysis (EA) and life cycle assessment (LCA). A production process (pilot 2012, 240 m(2)) was assessed and compared with two upscaling scenarios (pilot 2013, 1320 m(2) and first production scale 2015, 2.5 ha). The EA at process level revealed that drying and cultivation had the lowest efficiencies. The LCA showed an improvement in resource efficiency after upscaling: 55.5 MJ(ex,CEENE)/MJ(ex) DW biomass was extracted from nature in 2012, which was reduced to 21.6 and 2.46 MJ(ex,CEENE)/MJ(ex) DW in the hypothetical 2013 and 2015 scenarios, respectively. Upscaling caused the carbon footprint to decline by factor 20 (0.09 kg CO2,eq/MJ(ex) DW in 2015). In the upscaling scenarios, microalgae production for aquaculture purposes appeared to be more sustainable in resource use than a reference fish feed (7.70 MJ(ex,CEENE) and 0.05 kg CO2,eq per MJ(ex) DW).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.044

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Microalgae-based fish feed produced on a large scale (2.5 ha) had 20 times lower carbon footprint than fish feed produced on a pilot scale (0.024 ha).

    “According to one study, microalgae-based fish feed produced on a large scale (2.5 ha) had 20 times lower carbon footprint than fish feed produced on a pilot scale (0.024 ha) (Taelman et al., 2013).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Taelman et al., 2013

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 107

Authors
Taelman, S. E., De Meester, S., Roef, L., Michiels, M., & Dewulf, J.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Dewulf, J.
ORCID
Taelman, S.E.
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
150
Pages
513-522
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.044
OpenAlex
W2015476006
Cited by
107
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
EnAlgae
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Keywords
microalgae, aquaculture feed, environmental sustainability, exergy analysis, life cycle assessment, upscaling, resource efficiency, carbon footprint, microalgae cultivation, microalgae drying
MeSH terms
Animals, Breeding, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fishes, Pilot Projects, Thermodynamics, Aquaculture, Global Warming, Microalgae, Carbon Footprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review