The global aquaculture industry is facing growing pressure to improve feed sustainability as supplies of fishmeal and fish oil fluctuate and manufacturers increasingly explore alternative ingredients. Experts from Cargill Animal Nutrition and Health and the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation (IFFO) have warned that replacing conventional feed ingredients without comprehensive environmental data can create unintended consequences.
The issue extends beyond aquaculture and has important implications for the dairy industry, where feed manufacturers and farmers are also seeking to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining animal health, productivity and profitability.
Speaking at the IFFO Annual Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 19 to 21 October 2026, Cargill’s Director of Sustainability for Aqua Nutrition, Dave Robb, and IFFO Technical Director Brett Glencross discussed the need for improved life-cycle assessment (LCA) data to evaluate the environmental performance of feed ingredients.
Their central message was that sustainability must be measured across the entire feed formulation and production chain rather than through individual ingredients or a single environmental indicator.
Why Feed Sustainability Requires a Broader Approach
Feed is a major component of production costs and environmental performance in both aquaculture and dairy farming. Decisions about protein sources, energy ingredients and other feed components influence resource use, production efficiency and the environmental footprint of the final product.
In aquaculture, manufacturers have reduced their reliance on traditional marine ingredients and increased the use of plant-based alternatives. However, certain plant supply chains can contribute to deforestation, land-use change and increased water consumption.
Similar considerations apply to dairy feed. Soybean meal, maize, fodder crops and other ingredients can have different environmental impacts depending on how and where they are produced, processed and transported.
Replacing one ingredient with another may reduce a particular impact while increasing others. For example, an alternative protein source could lower pressure on marine resources but require more agricultural land or irrigation water.
For dairy producers, this means that feed sustainability assessments should consider the complete ration, including its nutritional composition, sourcing, digestibility and contribution to milk production.
Lessons From Two Decades of Aquaculture Feed Changes
Research presented at the IFFO conference examined European aquaculture production and feed composition between 2000 and 2020. During this period, aquaculture production more than doubled, while feed formulations shifted substantially towards plant-based ingredients.
By 2020, marine ingredients represented approximately 20% of feed, while plant products accounted for nearly 75%, according to the figures presented.
Despite a decline in the absolute volume of fishmeal and fish oil used, the research identified increases in several other environmental indicators. The reported carbon footprint of feed production increased approximately fourfold, the land-use footprint around eightfold, and water consumption approximately threefold.
These figures illustrate the potential trade-offs associated with ingredient substitution. They relate to the research and assessment boundaries presented at the conference and should not be interpreted as universal outcomes for every feed formulation.
For the dairy sector, the broader lesson is that reducing dependence on one resource does not automatically improve overall sustainability. A feed ingredient must be evaluated against multiple environmental indicators and its contribution to livestock performance.
Life-Cycle Assessment Can Improve Dairy Feed Decisions
Robb and Glencross advocated a more comprehensive approach using life-cycle assessment. This methodology evaluates environmental impacts across the stages involved in producing and delivering a product, helping businesses identify where resource consumption and emissions occur.
Their proposed framework for marine ingredients covered five stages: fishing, transferring catches from vessels to shore, processing, transporting materials to rendering facilities and rendering. The researchers compiled 370 datasets covering factors such as species, raw material types, production years, processing yields, energy use and water consumption.
Their analysis also indicated that ingredients derived from processing by-products could have substantially lower environmental footprints than ingredients produced from whole fish, depending on the production system and assessment boundaries.
In dairy farming, comparable assessments could examine the production of maize silage, soybean meal, cereal grains and other ration components. They could also consider transport, processing, fertiliser use, irrigation and the effects of feed quality on animal productivity.
Such information would help farmers, nutritionists and feed manufacturers compare ingredients using consistent criteria rather than relying on isolated sustainability claims.
Feed Efficiency Connects Sustainability With Farm Profitability
Environmental performance cannot be separated from animal nutrition. Dairy cows require balanced rations that meet their energy, protein, fibre, mineral and other nutritional requirements to support milk production, reproduction and health.
An ingredient substitution that lowers the purchase price may reduce digestibility or milk output, potentially increasing the feed required per litre of milk. Conversely, a slightly more expensive ration could improve productivity enough to lower production costs per unit of milk.
This relationship makes feed efficiency an important consideration for dairy sustainability programmes.
| Assessment area | Relevance to dairy farming |
|---|---|
| Carbon footprint | Measures emissions associated with feed production and supply |
| Land use | Helps assess dependence on agricultural land |
| Water consumption | Identifies irrigation and processing requirements |
| Nutritional performance | Evaluates digestibility and nutrient availability |
| Milk productivity | Connects ration performance with output |
| Feed cost | Measures economic viability for farmers |
A comprehensive assessment should also consider enteric methane emissions, manure management and other farm-level factors when evaluating the environmental footprint of milk production.
Better Data Needed for Responsible Feed Innovation
The conference speakers acknowledged that life-cycle assessment has limitations. Available data may be outdated, incomplete or insufficiently detailed to represent differences between production systems. Nevertheless, LCA provides a structured quantitative approach for comparing environmental performance and tracking improvements.
For the dairy industry, better data could support more transparent feed sourcing, improved ration formulation and stronger sustainability reporting. It could also help dairy cooperatives and processors evaluate environmental claims across their supply chains.
Ultimately, sustainable dairy production will depend on balancing environmental responsibility with animal welfare, nutritional performance and commercial viability. The aquaculture industry’s experience demonstrates why ingredient substitutions must be assessed carefully and why reliable data are essential.
As demand for milk and dairy products continues to grow, comprehensive feed assessments could help the sector identify practical opportunities to reduce environmental impacts without compromising productivity or farm profitability.
