Chicken in Salmon Feed: Sustainable Innovation or the Wrong Direction?
Good Fish – 29 October 2026
Recently, Lerøy (1) announced that they will start using poultry by-products as an ingredient in salmon feed. This has reignited a debate that has been developing for some time: is it desirable to replace fishmeal, soy, or other feed ingredients with products originating from the poultry sector?
The answer is less straightforward than it may seem at first glance.
Why is this debate particularly relevant now?
One important reason is that fishmeal and fish oil are increasingly under pressure. Global supplies of these resources are limited. Climate change, including stronger El Niño events (6,7), affects major fisheries such as the Peruvian anchovy fishery. At the same time, demand for aquaculture feed continues to increase, creating a growing need for alternative protein sources.
The discussion is not only about alternatives to fishmeal and fish oil. A significant portion of salmon feed already consists of plant-based ingredients, including soy. Some researchers and feed producers therefore view poultry meal as a potential substitute for soy protein concentrate rather than fishmeal.
Consequently, the debate is not only about reducing pressure on wild fish stocks, but also about determining which combination of marine, plant-based, and animal-derived ingredients results in the lowest overall environmental impact.
Supporters argue that poultry by-products are a smart example of circular resource use. From a circular economy perspective, this is understandable. If a chicken is already being raised for human consumption, it makes sense to utilize as much of the animal as possible and avoid waste.
However, this also raises a broader sustainability question. Poultry production itself has a significant climate impact. For this reason, many governments, scientists, and climate organizations recommend reducing the consumption of animal protein as part of the transition toward a more sustainable food system.
The economic value of an animal is determined not only by the meat sold for human consumption, but also by the value of its by-products. When feathers, blood, fats, and other residual materials gain commercial value through use in aquaculture feed, they generate additional revenue for the poultry sector.
As a result, the overall economic value of every chicken produced increases. Although this additional income may be relatively small compared with the value of meat itself, it nevertheless contributes to the profitability of the sector as a whole.
This does not automatically mean that poultry products in fish feed are unsustainable. It does, however, raise the question of to what extent such applications indirectly support the economic model of a sector that society increasingly expects to use fewer resources, less land, and generate fewer emissions.
In other words: are we making productive use of a waste stream that would otherwise go unused, or are we creating additional economic incentives that help sustain a production system that many believe should ultimately become smaller? There is no simple answer. That is precisely why the debate deserves more attention than a discussion focused solely on the climate footprint of an individual feed formulation.
What does this mean for the VISwijzer?
Within the current assessment framework, lower use of fishmeal and fish oil is indirectly rewarded through indicators such as the Fish Feed Dependency Ratio (FFDR). Replacing fish-derived ingredients with poultry products reduces dependence on wild fish stocks, which can potentially improve performance on this indicator. However, this highlights an important dilemma: lower dependence on wild fish stocks does not automatically mean that the overall sustainability impact is lower. At the same time, the current methodology does not include a specific assessment of terrestrial animal proteins such as poultry meal or insect protein.
Good Fish’s Preliminary Conclusion
At present, Good Fish believes there is insufficient scientific evidence to reach a definitive conclusion on the use of poultry proteins in salmon feed. A broader systems question also remains. Using by-products from the poultry sector appears logical from the perspective of reducing waste. At the same time, these by-products remain part of an economic system in which every additional application increases the total value of the animal being produced. This raises an important question: does the use of poultry by-products in aquaculture support the transition towards a more sustainable food system, or does it contribute to maintaining the economic attractiveness of a sector with a considerable climate footprint?
Ultimately, the debate is about more than feed formulations. It is also about whether pressure on marine ecosystems is reduced by shifting part of that pressure onto land-based production systems, or whether solutions exist that reduce dependence on both wild fish and livestock production.
For Good Fish, sustainability is about more than a single indicator. Lower dependence on wild fish stocks is positive, but must always be weighed against impacts on climate, biodiversity, circularity, animal welfare, and social acceptance.
The key question is therefore not only whether chicken is a suitable replacement for fishmeal, but also what kind of food system we want to promote in the long term. Good Fish will continue to closely monitor developments within industry, science, and organizations such as WWF before adopting a definitive position on this issue.