On-land cultivation of functional seaweed productsfor human usage

Jeff T. Hafting & Alan T. Critchley & M. Lynn Cornish &

Scott A. Hubley & Allan F. Archibald

Received: 10 August 2011 /Revised and accepted: 8 September 2011 /Published online: 27 September 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Worldwide, there has been much interest in thedevelopment and commercialization of human functionalproducts from seaweeds. Novel seaweed compounds withpotential applications as bioactive ingredients in naturalhealth products are being isolated in a number of activeresearch programs on this topic. The majority of theseresearch programs do not include cultivation as a criticallyimportant component in scaling the discoveries up tocommercialization (i.e., economies of scale realized). Manyof these seaweeds of interest with potential as functionalhuman products are diminutive in size, sparse in density,and seasonal in occurrence and bioactive efficacy, makingcommercialization by resource management and harvestingeconomically challenging and the application of traditionalocean-based production methods risky. Human functionalproducts will require sustainable production coupled withquality assurance and standardized, consistent efficacy.Since humans are the consumers of these types offunctional seaweed products, traceability and security ofsupply are of the utmost importance to successful commer-cialization. On-land cultivation is essential for commercialsuccess in the development of human functional productsfrom seaweeds at industrial scales. On-land cultivationallows the highest levels of control over quality, efficacy,traceability, and security. On-land cultivation represents themost environmentally acceptable method for the productionof biomass from natural resources that could not beeconomically or sustainably developed any other way.However, on-land cultivation has many associated barriers

to development, including high costs associated withcapital, operations, maintenance, and cultivar development,and these demands limit industrial scale development ofseaweed functional products for human consumption.

Keywords Functional . Seaweed . Cultivation . Land-based . On-land . Traceability . Efficacy . Sustainability .

Nutraceutical . Cosmeceutical

Introduction

The global market for functional products for humanconsumption has grown steadily in recent years (Lukovitz2008). This growth has been driven by advances innutritional science, as well as consumer demand, and allthe major industrial food, nutraceutical, pharmaceutical,and cosmetic players are seeking to capitalize on thisdemand with the development of new products. This paperwill argue that the development of a diverse, large-scaleindustry based on these types of functional products fromseaweed sources requires land-based cultivation to becommercially successful. Commercialization refers tolarge-scale production where economies of scale arefully realized. Success here has two measures: (1)increased diversity of seaweed genera actually sourcedfor new functional products, and (2) profitable value-added production made sustainably. Functional productsare defined as those having beneficial effects beyondsimple nutrition when they are consumed or applied(Hasler 2000) and include functional foods, nutraceuti-cals, and cosmeceuticals.

The functional food and beverage market is predicted toreach US $130 billion by 2015 and is driven by consumerhealth and wellness concerns (Evani 2009). Innovation and

J. T. Hafting (*) :A. T. Critchley :M. L. Cornish :S. A. Hubley :A. F. ArchibaldAcadian Seaplants Limited,30 Brown Avenue,Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada B3B 1X8e-mail: jhafting@acadian.ca

J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392DOI 10.1007/s10811-011-9720-1

media attention in this sector has brought the concept offunctionality to the mainstream. Historically, products thatsupport bone, gut, and heart health have enjoyed positiveconsumer acceptance. Taste still trumps functionality in thefunctional food market, but the inclusion of fish-oil intoyogurts, breads, and cereal products without negativelyaffecting taste bodes well for inclusion of seaweed-basedproducts into mainstream western diets.

The largest market for functional food products is theUSA, with between 35 and 50% of global sales, followedby the Asia-Pacific region. Together these markets repre-sent 75% of the global market. The UK, France, andGermany together represent over 65% of the Europeanmarket. Large food and beverage companies are the driversin these markets, and there are many partnerships in placeto share the costs of development, which are significant(GIA 2010).

Within the functional food market, both dairy andbeverages represent the largest and fastest growing seg-ments (projected at 6% annual growth from 2010–2015).Their convenient and portable delivery of nutrition is highlyfavored by consumers. The snack and confectionerymarkets are also a major growth segment. All of the largestfood companies worldwide are intensively developing thesemarkets to meet demand. Coca-Cola, General Mills,Groupe Danone, Kellogg’s, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Unileverare some of the big global players in the functional foodmarket. Functional foods continued positive market growththrough 2009 and 2010, though the pace was slowed by theeconomic downturn during this period. As recessionrecovery gains momentum, so too is the expectation formarket growth within the functional food sector. Futuregrowth from developing regions is expected to outpacedeveloped markets and will come from regions such as theMiddle East, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, asdisposable income levels and health consciousness rise(GIA 2010).

Functional product development

The term “functional food” originated in Japan in the 1980sand was aimed at consumers who recognize the role of dietand nutrition in promoting good health and preventingdisease (Plaza et al. 2008). The first functional foods werefortified whole foods. In the 1940s vitamin B-enriched flourwas developed to fight pellagra. Later, iodine-fortified tablesalt resulted in decreases in goiter incidence, and vitaminD-enriched milk was developed to combat rickets (Tuohy etal. 2009). These first functional foods were developed bygovernment initiatives to improve public health; however,new products are now emerging primarily from the privatesector. Some recently developed successful functional food

ingredients (and nutraceuticals) include probiotics, pre-biotics (Grajek et al. 2005), omega-3 from fish oil (Dudaet al. 2009), and phytonutrients from soy, blueberries, andgrapes (Kalt et al. 2000).

Virtually every major food, nutraceutical, and cosmeticcompany is activity developing markets for functionalproducts. Often this development work includes partner-ships between the major industry players and smaller,specialized ingredient suppliers. The process of newproduct development begins with screening of raw materi-als against a specific bioassay model or the analysis for aspecific compound of interest. The developers are usuallydirected by a specific promising target market. In otherwords, the developers know what they are looking for interms of functionality and are seeking raw materials thatpotentially fit that niche. Currently there is focus on thefollowing platforms for new functional product develop-ment: weight loss, anti-inflammatory, energy, antioxidant,mental function, DNA health, pigmentation/whitening, andcell matrix/skin health (Gellenbeck 2011). Primary sourcesfor botanical raw materials are terrestrial plants. Recently,seaweeds have begun to attract attention as new sources offunctional ingredients, but they are still a largely untappedresource when compared to other raw materials. Reasonsfor this will be discussed further later.

There are a number of high throughput bioassays andnatural chemistry methods that can be used for this earlydevelopment work, and a large number of botanical speciescan be screened against these rapidly (Plaza et al. 2010).Once the developer identifies a potentially interesting rawmaterial that shows significant activity within a specificallytargeted market platform, then the real work of develop-ment begins. The material must be made to demonstrateconsistent efficacy, and often methods for concentration orextraction of a compound of interest are developed.Preservation of efficacy and food safety is also determined.Product formulations and final platforms are prepared atthis initial stage; often this work is done by the develop-ment partner. Solid evidence of effectiveness is required,and peer-reviewed publication of these data is a compellingmeans for demonstrating efficacy (Gellenbeck 2011).Usually human clinical trials with finished materials arerequired before market development work can be initiated.

Once a developer has a promising response within thebioassay set, the work to secure the raw material begins.The norm is that the developer or a partnered naturalproduct chemistry based institution or company does notcontrol the raw material. These developers do the chemistryand bioassay screenings, but they usually do not grow orcontrol access to the raw materials. Depending upon thetarget market, the botanicals of choice for screening areusually chosen based on price and availability, since thedeveloper does not want to spend the time and money in

386 J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392

developing a product that is ultimately priced out of rangefor the target market or a product that is limited by rawmaterial availability. At this stage it is also essential that theraw material suppliers follow Good Manufacturing Practi-ces (GMP) if the material is to be utilized within a humanfunctional product (required information includes: origin,genus/species assurance, sustainability, environmental stew-ardship, acceptable workers conditions and cultural practi-ces, and quality assurance) (Gellenbeck 2011).

The next step in the development of new functionalproducts is a regulatory one. In order for functionalproducts to fetch higher prices than traditional products, ahealth claim is necessary. This health claim must be backedup with efficacy studies that include the product in its finalform, against the specific health claim that is being made.The level of evidence for efficacy is proportional to thehealth claim being made, and regional authorities have theultimate say in what can be claimed, based on informationprovided by the developer. In other words, the morebeneficial the health claims being made, the more stringentare the requirement for information and testing. This is thecommon theme among regional authorities in regulatinghealth claims, though large differences exist from oneregion to another. There are many grey areas in whatevidence is required for an acceptable claim, and theserequirements are constantly evolving (Siro et al. 2008). So aproduct may be considered a food in one region andregulated as a drug in another. The terms “functional food”and “nutraceutical” are marketing terms and are notgenerally recognized by law, and this makes their regulationdifficult as regional differences exist in their definition(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2009).

The evolving nature of the regulatory requirements fornew functional product development represents the singlelargest barrier to entry for these types of products. At thesame time, all regions are slowly tightening requirementsand moving toward standardization (Klimas et al. 2008).This can only be seen as a good thing for the functionalproduct industry. It will result in a credible industry andwill strengthen consumer acceptance of functional productsand the health claims that are made. These demandingrequirements for evidence based health claims do pose abarrier to entry for new products, such that small andmedium enterprises (SME) usually need to partner withlarger companies to share the development costs. Develop-ment of new functional products is not easily accomplished,although market data show that success can result in highmargin products with high consumer acceptance. Strongpartnerships between large, new product developers andSME’s (often specialized ingredient suppliers) and/or publicresearch institutions (Sankaran and Mouly 2007) arerequired for success in launching new products andsustaining profitable production.

Functional seaweed products, current and future

Currently, governments have made funding available forthe development of biofuels from microalgal biomass andalso from seaweeds. Seaweeds do not require freshwaterand do not compete for land resources with other farmedcrops; however, they will certainly compete with traditionalfarming for limited human resources (i.e., personnel withfarming skills). There are many challenges that have yet tobe addressed with using seaweeds for biofuel (economics ofproduction being the greatest challenge), but along withbiofuel funding there has been a surge in interest in highvalue seaweed extracts for use in human health markets.These high value markets are seen as the short and mediumterm drivers of functional products in the coming years.

There has been a marked shift in research attention fromtraditional extracts (hydrocolloids) to higher value com-pounds, generally found at lower concentrations withinseaweeds, but still highly bioactive. The hydrocolloidindustry remains healthy, and research efforts are stillyielding new products and applications for the rawmaterials, but it remains a highly commoditized market(Bixler and Porse 2011). The most advanced functionalproducts are based on fucoidins, laminarins, and polyphe-nols from large brown seaweeds (kelps and wracks). Theseseaweeds are common on the open market, and access tobiomass is not a barrier to entry for new products based onthem. They have garnered much attention lately regardingthe treatment of cancers, inflammation, and infections forexample (McDonnell et al. 2009; Shibata et al. 2007;Granert et al. 1999). In most cases the raw material that issourced for these high value extracts comes from tradition-ally (Asian) consumed kelps and provides supportingevidence for the beneficial effects of a diet that includesthese seaweeds (Teas et al. 2009; Murata and Nakazoe2001). Although there is strong science underway aroundthe world substantiating health claims with these newseaweed products, the message does not always make it tothe consumer since there are also a number of unsubstan-tiated claims being made. Regulation will help to cull theseineffective products and claims and will strengthen theindustry, but it will take time.

As with the hydrocolloid industry, development ofmarkets will require attention to raw material sources.Currently, functional products from seaweeds have beendeveloped from raw materials that are readily available. Asthese markets grow and new ones are developed, pressurewill be put on the availability of these raw materials, andcultivation technology will need to be expanded. In thepast, market demand for seaweed products has resulted inthe development of cultivation technology, such that over93.8% of the seaweed produced globally in 2008 was fromcultivated sources (FAO 2010). Eucheuma and Kappaphycus

J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392 387

cultivation in the Philippines and Indonesia are examples ofthis cultivation development (Bixler 1996). Also, thedevelopment of a huge Porphyra industry in Japan resultedfrom a market demand that was larger than the resourceavailable (the identification by Kathleen Drew of conchocelisas the alternative phase in the life history (Drew 1949) andlater research into substrate seeding of spores from con-chocelis lead to industrialization of Porphyra cultivation(Mumford 1988)). Laminaria cultivation in China is anotherexample of market demand pushing the development ofcultivation technology (Brinkhuis et al. 1987). Theseexamples produce high-volume, low-value products (foodcommodities). New products will fit a high-value, lower-volume market model, and technology for their cultivationwill evolve from ocean-based techniques to land-basedtechnology. The utilization of land-based technology willbe especially important when high value products aredeveloped from uncommon seaweed genera that do notconform well to current ocean-based techniques.

Seaweeds as functional product raw materials

There is much interest in the use of seaweeds, either aswhole foods or refined for active components (Smit 2004;Bocanegra et al. 2009; Holdt and Kraan 2011). This interesthas driven academic research programs and governmentfunded projects, as well as private commercial new productdevelopment initiatives. The majority of this effort hastargeted commonly available seaweed genera and hasfocused on whole plants as functional foods, or has targetedspecific refined compounds with demonstrated bioactivity.Another major global focus has been the collection ofseaweeds from specific regions and then the screening ofthese seaweeds for specific activity in bioassays, and theircontent of compounds of interest (e.g.: Manilal et al. 2009;Rhimou et al. 2010). Neither of these types of activities willlead to an increase in the diversity of seaweed generacurrently sourced for commercial functional products for avariety of reasons to be discussed later.

There are thousands of land plants that are readilyavailable for the production of functional products (bota-nicals). This contrasts sharply with seaweed availability,with only 23 genera commonly sourced on the openmarket. These available seaweeds fall into two categories,resource based and cultivated:

& Resource based: Codium, Fucus, Ascophyllum, Sargas-sum, Gelidium, Macrocystis, Chondracanthus, Solieria,Lithothamnion, Chondrus*, Ulva, Palmaria*

*Chondrus and Palmaria are cultivated on a largescale, but the raw material most common on the openmarket is resource based.

& Cultivated: Saccharina/Laminaria, Undaria, Alaria,Gracilaria, Eucheuma/Kappaphycus, Porphyra, Cau-lerpa, Undaria, Eisenia, Hizikia

Resource-based seaweeds are either large individuals,found in dense stands or washed ashore during storm castevents. In order for these seaweeds to be utilized, theremust be harvest technology and labor available during theseasonal occurrences of these genera. Storm cast events areunreliable, and again there must be labor available to takeadvantage of these events when they occur. Resource-basedseaweeds can be variable in quality and efficacy (Stengel etal. 2011), and food safety can be a concern since it can bedependent upon the water quality of the site. Sustainableharvesting practices must be in place for resources to beethically sourced and so that the natural environment is notunduly disturbed by commercial development. There aremany examples of both good resource management (Sharpet al. 2006) and bad, but the main barrier to thediversification of seaweed genera that are resource basedis the requirement that they be very obvious and largemembers of their ecosystems. Most seaweed genera do notfall into this category, and as such the majority of seaweedsare not candidates for resource development.

Very few seaweed genera are actually cultivated(though the majority of seaweed biomass on the marketcomes from cultivated sources), and the majority of thesecultivated seaweeds are from ocean-based operations(Titlyanov and Titlyanova 2010). Ocean-based cultivationrelies on anchored lines or nets that are either seeded orhave individuals tied to them for grow-out (de Goes andReis 2011). These seaweeds must be robust and mustresist epiphyte growth throughout the season. Epiphyteover-growth is a major challenge with this type ofcultivation (Fletcher 1995; Vairappan et al. 2008). Becausethese farms are ocean-based, they are subjected to all theadverse effects of weather and ocean conditions that canbe imagined. Farms are necessarily large and located inmultiple sites to mitigate the environmental risk to thecrop and to make them economically viable. The sizerequirement can lead to permitting difficulties, especiallyin North America where conflicts with recreationalinterests have limited the development of an ocean-basedseaweed cultivation industry.

Land-based cultivation

Both resource and ocean-based cultivated sources ofseaweed raw materials have inherent limitations when anincrease in diversity of seaweed genera available forfunctional products is the goal. They both rely on robustspecies, which lend themselves to resource development or

388 J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392

net or rope attachment of individuals or seeding withspores. The reliance on just a few robust seaweeds as rawmaterials is the single greatest reason for the laggingdevelopment of functional products from seaweeds ascompared to the number of land-plants being sourced forthese products. The diversity of seaweed raw materialsreadily available to developers is simply not availablecurrently.

The greatest advantage that land-based cultivationsystems have over other raw material sources is the abilityto be adapted to a much wider range of seaweed genera andforms than either resource or ocean-based cultivation hasbeen. Most seaweeds are diminutive in size, sparse indensity, and seasonal in occurrence and bioactive efficacy.This makes commercialization by resource managementand harvesting economically challenging and the applica-tion of traditional ocean-based production methods risky.Land-based cultivation methods are suitable for all but thelargest seaweeds, allowing products to be developed fromnon-dominant genera.

Land-based seaweed cultivation offers a range ofadvantages in the production of raw materials for functionalproduct development (Friedlander 2008; Pereira et al. inpress). Land-based cultivation can take a variety of forms,but all are based on holding water which is agitated to keepseaweeds suspended and exposed to light. Nutrients can beadded efficiently, and seawater is pumped on shore, andtherefore the composition of the media is under tightcontrol. Inflowing seawater can also be from a secondarysource, such as a from a fed aquaculture species like fin-fish or abalone, integrating production with fed andextractive organisms (IMTA, Integrated Multi TrophicAquaculture, Chopin et al. 2001). Vessels are threedimensional, making efficient use of available area.Effluent can also be captured and used in another down-stream application or treated prior to release to theenvironment. Also, the addition of nutrients can beoptimized, reducing the non-absorbed effluent nutrient loadbelow acceptable limits, another sustainability advantage.

So far only Ulva (Bolton et al. 2009), Caulerpa(Horstmann 1983), Chondrus (Acadian Seaplants Limited,Nova Scotia, Canada), and Palmaria (Big Island AbaloneCorporation, Kona, Hawaii) are commercially cultivated inlarge scale land-based operations. There has been verypromising pilot-scale research on Porphyra (Hafting 1999;Israel et al. 2006), Gelidium (Friedlander 2007), andBonnemaisonia (Mata et al. 2007), but so far no commer-cial production of these from land-based operations. Whilethis type of production does have many advantages, it isalso very challenging and demands that high-value marketsbe developed for seaweed products.

The modular nature of land-based operations is a hugeadvantage over ocean-based seaweed production. Tanks of

various sizes and multiple species or cultivars can all besited together in one location that is easily accessible (i.e.,no boats or specialized equipment are required to access thebiomass). This allows a developer to expedite researchefforts into selected cultivars, allowing rapid domesticationof seaweeds of interest. Replicated small-scale units fornutrient requirements, responses to stress, and cultivarisolation can be undertaken easily. Adverse environmentalconditions do not usually affect experimentation andproduction of biomass since the farms are on-land andremoved from tides, waves, and wind. Also, the modularset up allows small amounts of test biomass to be producedfor high value market and product development. Often newproducts from seaweeds are breaking new ground, and themarket size may be small initially. Ocean-based farms arenecessarily large, operating over multiple sites (spreadsrisk); therefore, large markets must already exist beforecultivation is attempted. These large markets are usuallymature and difficult to break into, making investment inocean-based cultivation technology challenging. With land-based operations, new products can be introduced into thehigh-value, low-volume markets, and then volume can begrown as new products gain acceptance. Multiple speciesand products can be produced at various biomass levels ona single site, diversifying the business and lesseningreliance on single markets.

Human product demands on raw materials

Raw material sources are under more scrutiny than ever forsafety (Bagchi 2004) and ethical sourcing (Schilter et al.2003). In fact, in the current regulatory and consumerenvironment there are strict guidelines that potential rawmaterials must conform to in order to be considered forhuman usage (Bagchi 2006).

Safety is a requirement for any human use raw material.Safety refers to both toxicity and foreign material contentand the ability to trace any break-down of product safety toits origin. Traceability is the ability to track any food oringredient that will be consumed through all stages ofproduction processing and distribution (Bertolini et al.2006). Traceability is a means for responding to risks,ensuring product safety. Authorities are now insisting thatwhen a risk is identified, that it be traced back to its sourcein order to prevent unsafe products from reaching consum-ers. Raw material suppliers will increasingly be heldaccountable for the safety of their products, and havingsolid traceability programs in place eases the approvalprocess for new raw materials entering the market place.Land-based cultivation offers the highest level of traceabil-ity in seaweed production. For example, at AcadianSeaplants Limited, every batch of Hana-Tsunomata™ sold

J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392 389

can be traced back to its starting inoculum 18 months priorto processing. The traceability data can reveal how thematerial was handled from lab to processing. This includeswhich tanks were used, how much fertilizer was applied,temperature and water quality data, and foreign materialfound during processing. Problems that could potentiallyarise during production can then be traced and eliminat-ed. This has resulted in safety and traceability levels forHana-Tsunomata™ that are unsurpassed in the industry.

Sustainably and ethically sourced raw materials are alsobecoming a requirement, rather than just a positivemarketing story. With the introduction of the NagoyaProtocol (October 2010) at the Tenth Meeting of theConvention on Biological Diversity, and its ratification bymember states, sustainability graduated from marketingpoint to law. The objective of the Nagoya Protocol is thefair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from theutilization of genetic resources, and the conservation ofbiological diversity and the sustainable use of its compo-nents. Again this can only be a good thing for thefunctional human product industry. Consumers are de-manding this of the products put forth for sale, and all themajor functional product developers are responding byscrutinizing their sources of raw materials.

Land-based operations are highly sustainable since theydo not alter the marine environment in any substantial wayduring construction or operation. Since these land-basedoperations are essentially 3-dimensional, they require amuch smaller foot-print than traditional ocean-based farms(i.e., higher stock biomass per unit area under water).Effluent is under management, and levels of regulateddissolved nutrients can be monitored and kept belowacceptable standards. Land-based operations are the onlytypes of operations that can ethically produce seaweedsintensively (i.e., with added nutrients as fertilizers), sincethe land-based biomass can efficiently remove nutrientsbefore effluent is released to the environment. The couplingof land-based seaweed production with alternative energy(wind, solar) or nearby fossil fueled powerplants for CO2

sequestration (Israel et al. 2005) offers potential forenhancing sustainability even further. There are significantenergy requirements for land-based seaweed production(blowers, pumps, harvesting, processing), but this energycould be largely green-sourced since coastal areas that arefavorable for production are often windy and sunny. Futurediscoveries and developments of new functional seaweedproducts may not be based on large seaweeds that arecompatible with resource-based or ocean-based sourcing.Therefore, land-based technologies offer a sustainablemethod for raw material production that could not beethically sourced any other way.

Another requirement for many raw materials is theability for a functional product developer to secure supply.

Without a secure supply, there is little incentive for adeveloper to invest in the research, regulatory, andmarketing work that must be done to successfully launcha new functional product. Developers need assurances thatthere will not be a problem in securing the necessarybiomass if demand suddenly increases for the product.Products that become temporarily not available are ofteneliminated from the highly competitive functional market-place (Gellenbeck 2011). Often a developer will seek anexclusive contract for a raw material if it is in short supply.The development of “proprietary cultivars” is a veryattractive concept for land-based seaweed producers, sincethis biomass cannot be found anywhere else. However, thiscan limit a buyers’ interest if there are not assurances thatproduction can keep up with potential demand for func-tional products made from this exclusive raw material.Security of supply allows for the development of marketswithout the risk of losing the basis on which the newproduct is built upon. Consistent efficacy and the standard-ization of quality are extremely important to the success ofnew functional products, especially if there is littlerefinement of the raw material before consumption. Land-based seaweed production results in consistent supply thatis less risky than ocean-based sources. Also, efficacy willbe more consistent because of the high level of control overculture conditions. The security of supply and consistent,standardized quality of land-based raw materials is veryattractive to functional product developers.

Land-based cultivation challenges

The development of new facilities for land-based seaweedcultivation faces a number of challenges. Water-front landavailability suitable for land-based production is limited,and when available, it is often priced out of range. Siteselection is all important, since once a site is chosen andinvestment is made it is extremely expensive to relocate.Water quality, topography, bathymetry, geology, irradianceand weather, accessibility, labor availability, power require-ments, and processing requirements must all be taken intoconsideration with site selection. Conflicts with localstakeholders (recreational and commercial) have preventedthe establishment of many potential ocean-based opera-tions, and these same stakeholders may also pose resistanceto land-based facility development.

Land-based cultivation is cost intensive since infrastruc-ture and energy requirements are high. Because land-basedcultivation is still a rarity, there is little help available inengineering and constructing a new site. There is nohandbook for setting up a land-based seaweed farm, sonovel solutions for tank design, harvesting, and processingmust be developed. Energy requirements demand that

390 J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392

efficiency be considered with all design and constructionefforts. Also, land-based operations should be mechanizedas much as possible to keep labor costs down.

Development of suitable cultivars is a time consuming,meticulous process that must be done at a facility thatallows the comparison of many cultivars of interest. Oftenthis cultivar development is done at a government researchfacility, which adds to the cost of development. While thiscan be a cost associated with development, often thesepartnerships speed commercialization since the start upwork requires a high level of expertise.

Because of the comparatively high costs of production,high-value markets must be developed. In most cases,initial developers will be trail-blazing with new products.This takes considerable marketing investment, and any newoperation will have to have secured enough funds to takethe operation through development to commercialization.This can be a barrier to entry and is probably the largestreason for there not being more land-based cultivationfacilities in existence today. Developers should seekpartnerships with existing land-based facilities to sharecosts and to expedite the development of new markets forhigh-value functional seaweed products. Expertise can beshared that will potentially benefit these partnershipsbetween developers and raw material suppliers.

Conclusions

The recent shift in research attention away from commodityproduction and towards higher-value products within the fieldof applied phycology will continue and accelerate in thefuture. Non-commercial, non-traditionally utilized seaweedgenera and species will become more important to AppliedPhycology as these more sparse and diminutive individuals arescreened for bioactive compounds and their positive effects onhuman health. History has shown that market demand forseaweed raw materials has resulted in the development ofcultivation technologies, such that 93.8% of seaweed harvestworldwide comes from cultivation (FAO 2010). There is noreason to assume that history will not repeat itself with thedevelopment of markets for functional seaweed products thatrely on safe, traceable, high-quality, ethically and sustainablysourced raw materials from non-traditionally utilized sea-weeds. Land-based cultivation will emerge as the most viablemeans for generating biomass suitable for these high-valuefunctional products. Regulatory requirements on functionalproducts will continue to tighten and standardize. Thecoupling of market development and sustainable land-basedseaweed cultivation will result in a highly diverse, newscience-based seaweed industry based on higher-value,lower-volume (i.e., non-commodity) functional products forhuman usage. The development of any new industry is

always difficult, especially for trailblazers with first products.Therefore, the success of this new seaweed industry will relyon the establishment of mutually beneficial partnershipsbetween developers and raw material suppliers.

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2009) Consumer trends: func-tional foods. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/pdf/marketanalysis%20report_functionalfoods-en.pdf

Bagchi D (2004) Nutraceutical and functional food industries: aspectson safety and regulatory requirements. Toxicol Lett 150:1–2

Bagchi D (2006) Nutraceuticals and functional foods regulations inthe United States and around the world. Toxicology 221:1–3

Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M, Massini R (2006) FMECA approach toproduct traceability in the food industry. Food Control 17:137–145

Bixler H (1996) Recent developments in manufacturing and marketingcarrageenan. Hydrobiologia 326/327:35–57

Bixler H, Porse H (2011) A decade of change in the seaweedhydrocolloids industry. J Appl Phycol 23:321–335

Bocanegra A, Bastida S, Benedi J, Rodenas S, Sanchez-Muniz FJ(2009) Characteristics and nutritional and cardiovascular-healthproperties of seaweeds. J Med Food 12:236–258

Bolton JJ, Roberton-Andersson DV, Shuuluka D, Kandjengo L (2009)Growing Ulva (Chlorophyta) in integrated systems as a commer-cial crop for abalone feed in South Africa: a SWOT analysis. JAppl Phycol 21:575–583

Brinkhuis BD, Levine HG, Schlenk CG, Tobin S (1987) Laminariacultivation in the Far East and North America. In: Bird KT,Benson PH (eds) Seaweed cultivation for renewable resources.Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science. 16. Elsevier,Amsterdam: pp 107-146.

Chopin T, Buschmann AH, Hallin C, Troell M, Kautsky N, Neori A,Kraemer GP, Zertuche-Gonzalez YC, Neefus C (2001) Integrat-ing seaweeds into marine aquaculture systems: a key towardsustainability. J Phycol 37:975–986

Drew KM (1949) Conchocelis-phase in the life-history of Porphyraumbilicalis (L.) Kutz. Nature 164:748–749

Duda M, O’Shea K, Stanley W (2009) Omega-3 polyunsaturated fattyacid supplementation for the treatment of heart failure: mecha-nisms and clinical potential. Cardiovasc Res 84:33–41

Evani S (2009) Trends in the US functional foods, beverages andingredients market. Retrieved from http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/eve/5289-eng.pdf

FAO (2010) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome,p 197

Fletcher RL (1995) Epiphytism and fouling in Gracilaria cultivation:an overview. J Appl Phycol 7:325–333

Friedlander M (2007) Advances in cultivation of Gelidiales. J ApplPhycol 20:451–456

Friedlander M (2008) Israeli R&D activities in seaweed cultivation.Israel J Plant Sci 56:15–28

Gellenbeck K (2011) Utilization of algal materials for nutraceuticaland cosmeceutical applications: what do manufacturers need toknow? J Appl Phycol. DOI 10.1007/s10811-011-9722-z

GIA (2010). Global Industry Analysts: global functional foods anddrinks market to exceed $130 billion by 2015. Retrieved fromhttp://www.foodbusiness360.com/summary-view.aspx?id=7342

de Goes HG, Reis RP (2011) An initial comparison of tubular nettingversus tie-tie methods of cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii(Rhodophyta, Solieriaceae) on the south coast of Rio de JaneiroState, Brazil. J Appl Phycol 23:607–613

J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392 391

GrajekW, Olejnik A, Sip A (2005) Probiotics, prebiotics and antioxidantsas functional foods. Acta Biochimica Polonica 52:665–671

Granert C, Raud J, Waage A, Lindquist L (1999) Effects ofpolysaccharide fucoidin on cerebrospinal fluid interleukin-1 andtumor necrosis factor alpha in pneumococcal meningitis in therabbit. Infect Immun 67:2071–2074

Hafting JT (1999) A novel technique for propagation of Porphyrayezoensis Ueda blades in suspension cultures via monospores. JAppl Phycol 11:361–367

Hasler CM (2000) The changing face of functional foods. J Amer CollNutr 19:499–506

Holdt SL, Kraan S (2011) Bioactive compounds in seaweed: functionalfood applications and legislation. J Appl Phycol 23:543–597

Horstmann U (1983) Cultivation of the green alga, Caulerparacemosa, in tropical waters and some aspects of its physiolog-ical ecology. Aquaculture 32:361–371

Israel A, Gavrieli J, Glazer A, Friedlander M (2005) Utilization of fluegas from a power plant for tank cultivation of the red seaweedGracilaria cornea. Aquaculture 249:311–316

Israel A, Levy I, Friedlander M (2006) Experimental tank cultivationof Porphyra in Israel. J Appl Phycol 18:235–240

Kalt W, McDonald JE, Donner H (2000) Anthocyanins, phenolics,and antioxidant capacity of processed lowbush blueberry prod-ucts. J Food Chem Toxicol 65:390–393

Klimas M, Brethour C, Bucknell D (2008) International market trendsanalysis for the functional foods and natural health products industryin the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan.Retrieved from http://admin.nutrinetcanada-nnc.ca/useredits/Image/FFNHP%20International%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%20031708%20MK%20%20CCB(1).pdf

Lukovitz, K (2008) Functional food, beverage products present oppor-tunities. Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=93619

Manilal A, Sujith S, Kiran GS, Selvin J, Shakir C, Gandhimanthi R,Panikkar MVN (2009) Biopotentials of seaweeds collected fromsouthwest coast of India. J Mar Sci Tech 17:67–73

Mata L, Silva J, Schuenhoff A, Santos R (2007) Is the tetrasporophyteof Asparagopsis armata (Bonnemaisoniales) limited by inorganiccarbon in integrated aquaculture? J Phycol 43:1252–1258

McDonnell P, Figat S, O’Doherty JV (2009) The effect of dietarylaminarin and fucoidan in the diet of the weanling piglet onperformance, selected faecal microbial population and volatilefatty acid concentrations. Animal 4:579–585

Mumford TF (1988) Porphyra as food: cultivation and economics. In:Lembi CA, Waaland JR (eds) Algae and human affairs. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 88–117

Murata M, Nakazoe J (2001) Production and use of marine algae inJapan. Japan Ag Res Quarterly 35:281–290

Pereira, R., C. Yarish and A.T. Critchley (in press). Seaweedaquaculture for human foods, land-based. In: Robert A. Meyers(ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology.Springer (2011). DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3

Plaza M, Cifuentes A, Ibanez E (2008) In the search of new functionalfood ingredients from algae. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:31–39

Plaza M, Santoyo S, Jaime L, Reina GG-B, Herroro M, Senorans FJ,Ibanez E (2010) Screening for bioactive compounds from algae. JPharm Biomed Anal 51:450–455

Rhimou B, Hassane R, Jose M, Nathalie B (2010) The antibacterialpotential of the seaweeds (Rhodophyceae) of the Strait ofGibraltar and the Mediterranean Coast of Morocco. African JBiotechnol 9:6365–6372

Sankaran JK, Mouly VS (2007) Managing innovation in an emergingsector: the case of marine-based nutraceuticals. R&D Manage-ment 37(4):329–344

Schilter B, Andersson C, Anton R, Constable A, Kleiner J, O’Brien J,Renwick AG, Korver O, Smit F, Walker R (2003) Guidance forthe safety assessment of botanicals and botanical preparations foruse in food and food supplements. Food Chem Toxicol 41:1625–1649

Sharp GJ, Ugarte R, Semple R (2006) The ecological impact ofmarine plant harvesting in the Canadian Maritimes, implicationsfor coastal zone management. Scienceasia 32(1):77–86

Shibata T, Ishimaru K, Kawaguchi S, Yoshikawa H, Hama Y (2007)Antioxidant activities of pholortannins isolated from JapaneseLaminariaceae. J Appl Phycol 20:705–711

Siro I, Kapolna E, Kapolna B, Lugasi A (2008) Functional food.Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance—areview. Appetite 51:456–467

Smit AJ (2004) Medicinal and pharmaceutical uses of seaweed naturalproducts: a review. J Appl Phycol 16:245–262

Stengel DB, Connan S, Popper ZA (2011) Algal chemodiversity andbioactivity: sources of natural variability and implications forcommercial application. Biotechnol. Adv. 29: 483-501

Teas J, Hurley TG, Hebert JR, Franke AA, Sepkovic DW, Kurzer MS(2009) Dietary seaweed modifies estrogen and phytoestrogenmetabolism in healthy postmenopausal women. J Nutr 139:16–21

Titlyanov EA, Titlyanova TV (2010) Seaweed cultivation: methodsand problems. Russian J Mar Biol 36:227–242

Tuohy M, Pappalarado G, Manning R, Dugal LF, Levy D (2009).Leveraging growth in the emerging functional foods industry:trends and market opportunities. Retrieved from http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/pwc_leveraging_growth_in_the_emerging.pdf

Vairappan CS, Chung CS, Hurtado AQ, Soya FE, Lhonneur GB,Critchley A (2008) Distribution and symptoms of epiphyteinfection in major carrageenophyte-producing farms. J ApplPhycol 20:477–483

392 J Appl Phycol (2012) 24:385–392