Comparative production and nutritional value of “sea grapes” — the tropical green seaweeds Caulerpa lentillifera and C. racemosa
- 1k Downloads
“Sea grapes” is a collective term for the edible varieties of the green seaweed genus Caulerpa. Here we conduct comparative analyses of the biomass productivities and biochemical properties of C. lentillifera and C. racemosa from tropical Australia. Commercial-scale production was evaluated using 1 m2 culture units with high stocking densities (>5 kg m−2). Productivity of C. lentillifera in a 6-week period yielded, on average, 2 kg week−1, whereas C. racemosa yielded <0.5 kg week−1. Morphometric comparisons of the harvestable biomass revealed that C. lentillifera had a higher proportion of fronds (edible portions) to horizontal runners (stolons) and a higher density of fronds per unit area. C. racemosa fronds, however, were significantly longer. The nutritional value of C. racemosa was higher than C. lentillifera for both polyunsaturated fatty acids (10.6 vs. 5.3 mg g−1 DW) and pigments (9.4 vs. 4.2 mg g−1 DW). The content of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and β-carotene decreased with increasing frond size in both species. Trace element contents also varied substantially between the species, including higher levels of zinc, magnesium and strontium in C. lentillifera, and higher levels of selenium in C. racemosa. Some less desirable elements were higher in C. lentillifera, including arsenic (1 vs. 0.1 ppm) and cadmium, whereas others were higher in C. racemosa, including lead, copper and vanadium. Overall C. lentillifera has a high biomass production potential in monoculture and distinct nutritional properties that warrant a focus on its commercialisation as a new aquaculture product in tropical Australia and in Southeast Asia more broadly.
KeywordsAlgae Aquaculture β-Carotene Minerals Nutrition Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)
This research was funded by the Australian Flora Foundation. The authors thank I. Tuart (JCU) for assistance in production experiments and Y. Hu (Advanced Analytical Centre, JCU) for conducting the elemental analyses, and two anonymous reviewers for their input.
- Cohen Z, Vonshak A, Richmond A (1988) Effect of environmental conditions on fatty acid composition of the red alga Porphyridium cruentum: Correlation to growth-rate. J Phycol 24:328–332Google Scholar
- David F, Sandra P, Wylie PL (2002) Agilent Application note 5988-5871EN. Improving the analysis of fatty acid methyl esters using retention time locked methods and retention time databases. Agilent Technologies IncGoogle Scholar
- Food and Nutrition Board USA (1981) Food chemical codex, 3rd edn. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Indergaard M, Minsaas J (1991) Animal and human nutrition. In: Guiry MD, Blunden G (eds) Seaweed resources in Europe. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–64Google Scholar
- Lawton RJ, de Nys R, Paul NA (2013) Selecting reliable and robust freshwater macroalgae for biomass applications. PloS one 8(5):e64168Google Scholar
- Magnusson M, Mata L, de Nys R, Paul NA (2013) Biomass, lipid and fatty acid production in large-scale cultures of the marine macroalga Derbesia tenuissima (Chlorophyta). Mar BiotechGoogle Scholar
- Paul NA, de Nys R (2011) Cultivating seaweed. Australian Patent Application AU2010224354Google Scholar
- Paul NA, Tseng CK (2012) Seaweed. In: Lucas JS, Southgate PC (eds) Aquaculture: farming aquatic animals and plants, vol 2. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 268–284Google Scholar
- Rangel-Yagui CD, Danesi EDG, de Carvalho JCM, Sato S (2004) Chlorophyll production from Spirulina platensis: cultivation with urea addition by fed-batch process. Biores Technol 92:133–141Google Scholar
- Saunders RJ, Paul NA, Hu Y, de Nys R (2012) Sustainable sources of biomass for bioremediation of heavy metals in waste water derived from coal-fired power generation. PloS one 7 (5):e36470Google Scholar