Key fact: IFFO's 14 September update reports January-July 2026 fishmeal output down 49% and fish oil output down 30% against the same period in 2025. These are reported production comparisons, not measurements of available export stock. IFFO September update
Marine-ingredient buyers should enter the fourth quarter with two purchasing plans, not one. The practical question is not simply how much marine material to buy. It is which nutritional functions require coverage, which specifications have been approved, and which deliveries are sufficiently documented to count as secure supply. This is GT Nutritions' commercial interpretation of the latest evidence, not a forecast of prices or a recommendation to increase inventory indiscriminately.
What the September update actually says
In a release dated 14 September 2026, IFFO reported that cumulative fishmeal production for January-July was 49% below the corresponding 2025 period, while fish oil production was 30% lower. It identified Peru and Chile as the main contributors to the shortfall. The release also discussed possible additional supply from Asian fishing seasons later in the year. That possibility is not evidence that replacement shipments are already available. Source: IFFO production update.
The reporting window matters. A September publication describing production through July should not be presented as a live September stock count. Buyers should distinguish historical output, current offers and confirmed allocations in every internal report.
Start with the nutritional job
IFFO's technical material describes fishmeal as a source of protein, essential amino acids and other nutrients, while marine oils have an important role in supplying long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. It also highlights digestibility and palatability in assessing feed ingredients. These characteristics explain why crude protein alone is an incomplete comparison. Source: IFFO nutritional background.
Commercial interpretation: ask the formulation team to define the task before procurement requests alternatives. For meal, the comparison sheet should identify the approved amino-acid, digestibility, ash and moisture criteria. For oil, it should identify the required fatty-acid profile and quality criteria. Request the analytical basis and test method alongside each result; do not compare figures that describe different measurements as though they were equivalent.
A cheaper tonne is not automatically a cheaper formulation. Have the nutritionist assess proposed changes using the complete diet, intended species and production stage. Keep commercial selection separate from technical approval until both decisions are documented.
Build separate coverage records
Recommended buying process: maintain one coverage record for marine meals and another for marine oils. Give each purchase line a required delivery date, approved specification, quantity, origin, nominated lot where available, and evidence supporting its status.
Use distinct labels for an indicative offer, an accepted order, an allocated lot and a shipment with transport documents. Do not count the same quantity at several stages. Record the date on which availability was last confirmed and who is responsible for checking it again.
Review gaps against actual production requirements rather than a general market headline. Where a formulation change is still under review, show the alternative as conditional coverage. This keeps an attractive quotation from becoming an unsupported assumption in the production schedule.
Consider processing by-products without assuming equivalence
IFFO identifies seafood-processing by-products as established raw materials for marine ingredients. These include material from both wild-caught fish and aquaculture, including salmon. That is useful background for broadening a sourcing discussion, but it does not establish the specifications, availability or suitability of an individual commercial lot. Source: IFFO raw-material overview.
Commercial interpretation: distinguish the raw-material route from the final product approval. Ask for species and origin information, an agreed specification and representative analytical evidence. Keep any sustainability or certification claim tied to the supporting documents rather than treating the word "by-product" as a complete assurance statement.
Salmon meal and salmon oil may be relevant products to evaluate. Other protein ingredients may also belong in a formulation review. None should be described as a universal, one-for-one substitute simply because a supply report shows reduced marine output.
Make alternatives ready before they are needed
IFFO's formulation guidance describes diets differentiated by species and environment, with marine nutrients used strategically across life stages. It supports a targeted assessment rather than a single replacement rule for every feed. Source: IFFO formulation guidance.
Recommended approval process: give each candidate ingredient a clear status: evidence requested, technical review, trial required, approved for a defined use, or rejected. Record who approved it and any inclusion conditions. Ask the responsible compliance specialist to confirm destination and intended-use eligibility before a commercial commitment; this article does not establish permission for any particular ingredient or market.
For each approved candidate, obtain a realistic loading window, packaging details, documentation list and comparable delivery terms. Evaluate the delivered commercial offer separately from the nutritional assessment. An approved specification without an executable shipment plan is not complete supply coverage.