<p>Recently I read about OceanReef's Nemo's garden, which is growing terrestrial plants underwater inside a dome on the seefloor. I did not found any other company doing it.</p>

<p>If it is that good as it is claimed to be (lack of pests and doseases, stable temperature), why did not the technology go large scale in the past years? There were articles about it from 2015 so quite a few years passed since then.</p>

<p>So why didn't the technology went into large-scale commercial use yet and is there any specific reason why noone else seems doing it?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T22:50:29.463Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this isn't about Earth Science as defined in the [help center](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help).  You may have better luck at [Sustainable  Living SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com).
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T23:44:07.907Z
Building and maintaining structures in the ocean is definitely quite risky and expensive. Right now there are many, many aquaculture companies and more coming every day. They are profitable producing many fish, shellfish, and algae. You can check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture
arkaia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T08:14:40.543Z
In it's current form it's not a good fit for *any* StackExchange site because it's too broad. (1) It invites opinions (2) Their are too many possible reasons (it would require at least several pages to answer)
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T10:16:29.393Z
Perhaps if you narrowed it to solely focus on asking why this particular method didn't gain larger production, and the question were moved to like an economics board, you might find hope of success.  Though many economic and scientific questions can be a bit opinion based, it would need to be framed in a way that pushed people to give evidence for their position.  But indeed it really doesn't relate much to geography/geology/meteorology/glaciology/or physical oceanography, which are the core focuses here (basically physical focuses of the Earth system rather than biological)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T13:02:04.517Z
I think your question might be a nice fit for [Sustainability SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/) That site is definitely focused on new technologies, and this site is pretty much focused on Earth processes, and sometimes human impact on Earth processes. It's an interesting question, consider posting it there instead?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T23:05:49.313Z
Thank you everyone for the feedback, I'll refine the question and post to Sustainability SE.
zabop
<agriculture><sea-floor>
What are the main obstacles facing large-scale underwater farming?
zabop
# What are the main obstacles facing large-scale underwater farming?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-18)

Recently I read about OceanReef's Nemo's garden, which is growing terrestrial plants underwater inside a dome on the seefloor. I did not found any other company doing it.

If it is that good as it is claimed to be (lack of pests and doseases, stable temperature), why did not the technology go large scale in the past years? There were articles about it from 2015 so quite a few years passed since then.

So why didn't the technology went into large-scale commercial use yet and is there any specific reason why noone else seems doing it?

**Tags:** agriculture, sea-floor

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this isn't about Earth Science as defined in the [help center](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help).  You may have better luck at [Sustainable  Living SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com).  
> **username_2**: Building and maintaining structures in the ocean is definitely quite risky and expensive. Right now there are many, many aquaculture companies and more coming every day. They are profitable producing many fish, shellfish, and algae. You can check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture  
> **username_3**: In it's current form it's not a good fit for *any* StackExchange site because it's too broad. (1) It invites opinions (2) Their are too many possible reasons (it would require at least several pages to answer)  
> **username_4**: Perhaps if you narrowed it to solely focus on asking why this particular method didn't gain larger production, and the question were moved to like an economics board, you might find hope of success.  Though many economic and scientific questions can be a bit opinion based, it would need to be framed in a way that pushed people to give evidence for their position.  But indeed it really doesn't relate much to geography/geology/meteorology/glaciology/or physical oceanography, which are the core focuses here (basically physical focuses of the Earth system rather than biological)  
> **username_5**: I think your question might be a nice fit for [Sustainability SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/) That site is definitely focused on new technologies, and this site is pretty much focused on Earth processes, and sometimes human impact on Earth processes. It's an interesting question, consider posting it there instead?  
> **username_0**: Thank you everyone for the feedback, I'll refine the question and post to Sustainability SE.  

---

## 0 answers

