For many years, feed in Mediterranean gilthead seabream and European seabass aquaculture was treated as a technical variable to be optimised: a combination of proteins, lipids and energy whose primary objective was to sustain growth at the lowest possible cost. However, sector maturity, sustained pressure on margins and the growing complexity of production environments have shifted the role of feed from a purely technical input to a strategic one. Today, in seabream and seabass farming, choosing a feed often means choosing a business model.
In increasingly intensive marine aquaculture systems, feed is no longer assessed solely on its ability to maximise specific growth rates. Its impact on the biological stability of the stock has become critical. Seabream, particularly sensitive to intestinal disorders and chronic stress, and seabass, vulnerable to metabolic imbalances at certain stages of the grow-out cycle, have clearly shown that a competitive FCR losses its value if it increases sanitary risk.
In this context, feed becomes a tool for risk management. More digestible formulations, with functional profiles aimed at gut health or immune response, allow for more stable production cycles, even if growth is marginally slower. This partial departure from pure zootechnical optimisation is, in fact, a strategic decision focused on predictability – an increasingly valuable asset in a volatile cost environment.
In technically well-balanced production systems, feed for seabream and seabass typically accounts for more than 50% of total production costs, leading many producers to prioritise price per tonne. Yet in mature and highly competitive markets, profitability is no longer determined solely by direct costs, but by the variability of outcomes.
A feed that reduces size dispersion, improves stock uniformity and lowers losses associated with subclinical issues delivers strategic value that is difficult to capture in a conventional spreadsheet. In many Mediterranean farms, feed has evolved into a tool for economic stabilisation rather than a simple production input.
From a market perspective, the narrative also matters. The origin of feed raw materials, reduced reliance on marine ingredients, or the incorporation of alternative proteins – such as insects or algae – are no longer neutral choices. In many cases, they determine access to specific customers, certifications and higher value market segments.
In this sense, feed acts as a vector of strategic positioning, increasingly embedded in the commercial and reputational discourse of some producers.
Moreover, certain feed manufacturers support producers from the earliest stages of production development, integrating formulation, feeding strategies and technical support. As a result, feed becomes a structural element of the production model rather than an easily interchangeable input.
The business model chosen by the producer is therefore decisive when selecting the feed manufacturer that will accompany them throughout the process. Producing for volume and rapid turnover is fundamentally different from producing for differentiated markets with longer cycles and higher demands for stability and quality.
The key question, then, is no longer which feed delivers the best results, but which feed is consistent with the production system, the target market and the level of risk the producer is willing to assume. In today’s Mediterranean aquaculture landscape, this second question is not merely a theoretical reflection, but an unavoidable strategic decision.
Related
