Why use algae when corn is more readily available, does not need prior protein extraction and is quite cheap?  Just asking.

Really? Because corn is not always readily available..algae only needs light and Co2 with minimal feeding.  And CO2 footprint on corn production is huge.

Hello Candace,  

The requirement of prior protein extraction from algae makes it a very expensive source of protein for use as an additive to chicken feed.  Chicken feed should be as cheap as possible (have you heard of the expression "It's just chicken feed"..... it means "It's very cheap"), otherwise, the price of the chicken fed this way would be too high.  

Chicken is farmed for its protein, i.e., its meat and flesh, because humans, who eat the chicken, require protein.  Just let the chicken eat plants (because there are more plants than protein in nature), and the chicken can convert  them to proteins (i.e., its muscles) so humans can consume the chicken as food.  The objective is not to produce healthy, strong and robust chicken by feeding them a special high-protein diet from algae.  It is us humans who require protein from chicken meat.  TBH, we don't care what the chickens eat, just as long as they provide us humans with protein from their muscles and organs.  

You also said that "algae only needs light and CO2 with minimal feeding".  Well, corn also requires only CO2 and light, and does not even need minimal feeding.

And as for the CO2 footprint from corn production:  Would you rather have low CO2 footprint and a sick, malnourished population, or a high CO2 footprint and a strong, healthy population?   Just trying to help.  

Best..

I wrote  " ... or a high CO2 footprint ..."  just for emphasis.  Actually what I meant was "... or a slightly higher CO2 footprint ...".   I agree that our CO2 footprint on the environment should be minimized.  Sorry for the misinterpretation.