Marine Conservation Society
Feeding the fish of the future
9th November 2010
Paddy Campbell
BioMar Ltd.
Introduction
• Raw material used in last 10 years
– Fishmeal and protein sources
– Fish oil and vegetable oils
• Current raw material use and comparison of Scotland to
Norway, Chile and Canada
• Comparisons to other non Salmonid species reference:
Tilapia
(Note: Based mainly on BioMar’s view and industry figures)
Raw materials
• Key area for all feed
manufacturers why?
• Feed cost and flexibility
• Feed performance
• Processing / factory
performance
• Traceability and feed
safety
• Sustainability
Raw materials used in fish feed are commodities
with high price volatility
EUR Price Development Selected Raw Materials
Index January 2006 = 100
Wheat
Soya Meal
Fish Meal
Fish oil
Rapeseed oil
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
05/01/2006
05/01/2007
05/01/2008
05/01/2009
Fishmeal and alternative protein
sources
Average Fishmeal inclusion level in Scottish
salmon feeds in relation to annual average
fishmeal price
50
Fishmeal %
Label Rouge
1200
Fishmeal %
Scottish
45
800
30
25
600
20
400
15
10
200
5
0
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Price / tonne (GBP)
35
Inclusion (%)
Fishmeal price
(GBP)
1000
40
Use of fishmeal and it’s vegetable protein
replacers over time in Scottish salmon feeds
Fishmeal
40
Oilseed meals
35
Refined vegetable
proteins
% inclusion
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
fishmeal
Hi Pro Soya
Sunflower cake
Soy protein conc.
Corn gluten
Fishmeal and alternative proteins
•
•
Apart from Label Rouge feeds, fishmeal levels in Scottish Salmon
feeds has reduced from approx 36% to 23% over the last 10 years
Replacement generally associated with:
–
–
–
–
•
•
Increasing fishmeal price
Change in price ratio of fishmeal to vegetable proteins (soya)
Knowledge base of feed manufacturers
Market acceptance
With decreasing fishmeals the level of refined vegetable proteins has
increased (SPC) and oils seed meals like Hi Pro soya and sunflower
meal have decreased
Fishmeal levels can come down further if need be (nutritional ‘task’
not needed for other reasons (human health benefits)
Fish oil, vegetable oils and EPA and
DHA|
Fish Oil
h e rrin g
sa n d e e l
ca p e lin
a n ch o vy
Sat
21
20
21
28
M onos
53
43
55
23
1
1
2
1
1 8 :2 n -6
2 0 :5 n -3
EPA
6
11
8
17
2 2 :6 n -3
DHA
6
9
6
9
EPA and DHA: Key fatty acids for human health
Vegetable Oil choice
soya
ra p e
p a lm
o liv e
lin s e e d
1 6 :0
11
4
44
10
7
1 8 :1
22
56
39
78
15
1 8 :2 n -6
53
26
11
7
18
1 8 :3 n -3
8
10
1
1
56
2 0 :5 n -3 E P A
0
0
0
0
0
2 2 :6 n -3 D H A
0
0
0
0
0
Average Fish / vegetable oil inclusion level in Scottish
salmon feeds in relation to price
30
1200
Fish oil Label Rouge
Fish oil Scottish
vegetable oil Scottish
25
1000
Fish oil price (GBP)
20
800
15
600
10
400
5
200
0
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Fish oil
Rapeseed oil
2009
2010
Price / tonne (GBP)
Inclusion (%)
Rape oil price (GBP)
What does our use of fish oil and vegetable oil mean
in regard to EPA and DHA levels in flesh?
• Assume a use of both NH and SA fish oils with the
majority being NH fish oils
• Assume 26% EPA and DHA for SA fish oil
• Assume 14% EPA and DHA for NH fish oil
• Vegetable oil use as of today (average 4% inclusion in
feeds)
• Scottish salmon will have an average of approximately
16% EPA and DHA (% of flesh oil)
• 2.25% of fillet (14% fat in fillet)
IFFO data on world fish oil exports
Tonnes / year
Growth / year (%)
Growth in Omega 3 refining industry / year and
volume of fish oil used / year (GOED, 2010)
Focus on EPA / DHA and fish oil supply
Farming + human consumption
10% EPA and DHA
in fillet fat
Farming
Supply
Farming + human consumption
7.5% EPA and
DHA
Supply
Farming
Farming +
5.0% EPA and
DHA
human consumption
Supply
Farming
Figure showing 3 scenarios for fish oil supply and use based on 10%, 7.5% and 5% EPA and DHA
targets for farmed salmonids production (FHL, Norway)
Improving efficiency of use of EPA and
DHA
30
30
E P A + D H A i fis k
25
P ADHA
+D H A%
, %of
av flesh
fettsyrer
oil
EPAE&
oil
EPAE&
P ADHA
+ D H A%
, %ofav feed
fettsyrer
E P A + D H A i fô r
20
15
10
5
FO
•
20
15
10
5
0
0
•
25
R30
R60
FO
R30
R60
Decreasing EPA and DHA in feed increases retention efficiencies in
flesh
EPA and DHA therefore can be used more efficiently when using plant
oils
Fish oil, vegetable oils and EPA and
DHA|
• Only very modest replacement of fish oil with vegetable
oil has taken place in Scotland
• Scottish salmon therefore contains high levels of EPA and
DHA (approx 16% of fillet fat)
• Global supply of fish oil / EPA and DHA becoming critical
• We use far more than other salmon producing countries /
tonne of fish produced
• Unlike fishmeal this is not a nutritional challenge but a
market driven development
Current raw material use and comparison
of Scotland to Norway, Chile and
Canada
Current estimated raw material inclusion (weighted average
of all products) in different salmon farming regions
Starch sources
100%
90%
13
% inclusion
13
13
13
15
3
11
8
4
21
22
21
24
12
12
19
17
4
17
80%
70%
13
36
25
60%
24
15
30%
45
20%
10%
23
23
0%
Scotland
standard
Vegetable oils
Land animal proteins
Vegetable proteins
Fish oil
Fishmeal
34
50%
40%
Poultry oil
Scotland LR
Norway
Country / feed type
Chile
Canada
Total Marine
Expected differences in feed cost based on
different raw material profiles of feed types
% of Scottish Standard feeds
120.0
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
Scotland
standard
Scotland LR
Basis: Current European RM prices, 30ppm Asta
Ex. mill price, Grower salmon feed with 30% Dig
Protein 21 Mj/kg Dig Energy.
Norway
Country / feed type
Chile
Canada
Current raw material use and comparison of
Scotland to Norway, Chile and Canada
• Main difference between Scottish feeds (non Label Rouge)
and Norwegian feeds is the higher use of fish oil in
Scotland
• Main difference between Chilean and Canadian salmon
feeds and European feeds is the use of land animal proteins
and oil, principally poultry meal, feather meal, bloodmeal
and poultry oil
• Considering above currently feed price will be ± 10% from
typical Scottish feed price
Comparison to other species e.g.
Tilapia
Tilapia Grower feed in relation to Scottish
salmon feed
100%
13
90%
4
35
80%
% inclusion
70%
36
9
60%
10
50%
40%
24
41.5
30%
20%
23
10%
2
2.5
0%
Scotland standard
Tilapia Grower
Feed type
Starch sources
Poultry oil
Vegetable oils
Land animal proteins
Vegetable proteins
Fish oil
Fishmeal
Comparison to other species e.g. Tilapia
• Tilapia only have a small requirement for marine raw
materials (approximately 6% total fishmeal and fish oil)
• Tilapia feeds lower in protein (32%) and energy
(15.5MJ/kg)
• Tilapia utilize carbohydrate as energy source also hence
higher level of starch sources (wheat, corn, sorghum)
• Feed cost approximately 50% of salmon feed
• Commercial FCRs 1.9 (Tilapia) vs. 1.2 (salmon)
• No requirement to achieve a flesh EPA and DHA level
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fishmeal levels have decreased overtime, further decreases are
possible depending upon knowledge and price
A far bigger challenge is the use of Fish oil. We use far more fish oil /
tonne of salmon in Scotland compared to all other salmon rearing
countries, this is market driven not a nutritional requirement
Use of LAPs of course gives Chile and Canada a major benefit in feed
and hence production costs
Scottish Salmon feeds are much higher in marine raw materials
compared to feeds for other species such as Tilapia
Differentiation in both feeds and salmon products has been far quicker
in the UK than elsewhere, an important part of this has been healthy
eating (EPA and DHA) and sustainability (choice of raw materials in
particular marine raw materials)
How do we continue to differentiate but deal with important issues like
our fish oil use?