Feed Fortification: New Studies to Inform a Program Built Around Improved Feed
- Paul Monaghan
- 13 hours ago
- 6 min read
Summary
In December 2025, we shared findings from a study we conducted to test whether a custom-formulated fish feed improves fish welfare compared to the feed commonly utilised by farmers of Indian major carp in Andhra Pradesh. While overall the findings from our study were encouraging, we are being cautious about moving forward with a program built around an improved feed without stronger evidence. This blog post summarises the studies we are now pursuing to provide the level of evidence we need to take a program forward or not.
Background
Feed quality and management are critical determinants of fish welfare. Most farmers of Indian major carp (IMC) in Andhra Pradesh use de-oiled rice bran (DORB) as the primary supplemental feed during the grow-out stage. DORB is a by-product of oil extraction from rice bran, which itself is a by-product of rice production. Unfortunately, DORB’s poor nutritional value—lacking essential proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals—makes it unsuitable for fishes. Additionally, DORB contains mycotoxins and other anti-nutritional factors that reduce nutrient absorption and digestibility. Apart from its poor nutritional value, feed management practices typically employed for DORB-based feeding, compounded by its powder-like formulation, contribute to poor water quality, thereby negatively impacting the welfare of the fishes. DORB is the feed type of choice for IMC farmers in Andhra Pradesh due to its low cost. Cost is a critical consideration for IMC farmers, as margins are so low.
FWI believes that the use of DORB likely causes suffering for the fishes and increases their susceptibility to other welfare issues, such as disease. Since 2024, we have been exploring if a modified version of DORB, supplemented with a small number of nutrients and formulated as a pellet, can improve fish welfare while being a viable option for IMC grow-out farmers to utilize in place of conventional DORB. DORB was selected as the basis for our customized feed, as our ultimate aim is to present farmers with a cost-effective product that they are likely to accept; given the low-cost and widespread use of DORB, we reasoned that a fortified version of DORB—rather than formulating a whole new bespoke feed—was the best strategy to pursue.
In December 2025, we shared findings from a study we conducted to provide a proof of concept that our fortified feed is better for fishes compared to conventional DORB. While overall the findings from our study were encouraging, the results did not meet the evidence bar we have. We are being cautious about moving forward with a program built around an improved feed without stronger evidence. We are thus currently initiating the following three studies to provide the level of evidence we need to determine whether to take a program forward.
Our Studies
This week, we are launching three studies in parallel:
A tank-based study to assess the impact of fortified feed on welfare and growth:
This is a laboratory-based version of the study we conducted in 2024 at our former test facility at AKNU. Instead of conducting the study in test ponds, we will utilize tanks, similar to how we conducted our DO Tolerance study last year. This tank-based study is more “controlled” than the previous pond-based study, so issues that plagued us during that previous study are less likely to occur (refer to our blog post from December that describes issues which likely led to—or, at least, contributed to—the highly variable data, thereby complicating comparisons between the feeds). This increases confidence that conclusive results—either positive or negative—will be obtained.
We will conduct this study at our newly constructed test facility in Bikkavolu in Andhra Pradesh. This study will involve 120 fishes. At the end of the study, fishes will be released into their natural habitat in the wild, as per FWI’s ethical standards.
Timeline: This study will run for a period of two months (excluding pre-study acclimation), after which we’ll assess the data.
A tank-based study to assess the impact of fortified feed on water quality:
This study focuses on nutrient leaching from the two feeds and their impact on water quality. This aims to provide a proof-of-concept that our bespoke fortified feed is less polluting and better for water quality than conventional DORB. Comparing any differential impact on water quality from the two feeds in the tank-based study to assess the impact of fortified feed on welfare and growth (described above) would be difficult—if not impossible—because that study necessitates constant water exchange to prevent the buildup of toxic levels of ammonia and to maintain favourable levels of DO in the study tanks.
This study will be conducted in the same facility used for the study described above. This study does not involve any fishes.
Timeline: This study will be conducted immediately before the initiation of the main tank-based study (see above). This “nutrient-leaching” study is very quick to conduct: we will take water samples over the course of 24 hours, and send them to a commercial laboratory for analysis.
A field-based study to compare fortified feed to DORB in a real-world setting:
In parallel to conducting a tank-based study to assess the impact of fortified feed on the welfare and growth of fishes, we will also conduct an experiment with the same overall objectives, but at real fish farms.
This study will be conducted at twelve fish farms in the Nellore region of Andhra Pradesh. Half of these will be provided with fortified feed, and the others will be provided with conventional DORB, with farmers tasked with feeding their fishes. All farmers involved in this study would be farming fishes regardless of this study, so we are not procuring fishes specifically for study purposes.
Timeline: At each of the twelve study ponds, this study will run for a period of four months. We are initiating the study this week at one pond, with the remainder to be phased in over the coming weeks. We expect to complete the field work by early August, after which we’ll assess the data.
Why Conduct Three Studies in Parallel?
Our previous pond-based study and our new tank-based studies are “efficacy” studies, designed to assess fortified feed used by researchers in a test facility (i.e., the studies are 100% conducted by a research team under rigid experimental conditions). By contrast, the field-based study is an “effectiveness” study, designed to assess fortified feed when used by real farmers at real farms (i.e., the study is conducted in a real-world setting involving the stakeholders who would ultimately be targeted by a program, with the research team only involved in coordination and data collection).
It is conceivable that fortified feed in the hands of researchers under rigorous experimental conditions could show benefits over conventional DORB that would not be obtained when farmers use it under real-world conditions. Therefore, an effectiveness study—which is focused on real-world conditions—is the more appropriate study type for informing decisions around scaling-up a program. Proceeding with a program based merely on results from an efficacy study is fraught with danger and is not good practice.
When we first embarked on this project in 2024 with our pond-based (efficacy) study, the intention was to only proceed to the field-based (effectiveness) study if we had promising findings from the pond-based study. This plan was driven by resources: effectiveness studies are typically large and resource-intensive, whereas efficacy studies are typically smaller and less resource-intensive, so we reasoned that it was best to use the findings from an efficacy study to inform go/no-go decisions for an effectiveness study.
However, with our 2026 Goal in mind, we have decided to take a calculated risk, guided by promising results from our pond-based (efficacy) study: we are proceeding with the field-based (effectiveness) study before the findings from the tank-based (efficacy) study are in. While the results from the field-based study will ultimately inform the go/no-go decision for proceeding with a program, the two tank-based studies provide critical information, too.
Going From Proof-of-Concept to a Program
If these studies provide sufficiently compelling evidence that fortified feed is significantly better than conventional DORB, we need to consider how we would actually get fortified feed into the hands of farmers, in a scalable and sustainable way. We still don’t know what form a program would take, but we believe that if we can provide the proof-of-concept that fortified feed is superior to conventional DORB, we’ll be able to develop a suitable program.
Later in this quarter, we will convene a workshop in our offices in Eluru, bringing together different staff to brainstorm ideas for what a program built around fortified feed could look like. That will allow us to fully develop plans for a program we believe is scalable, impactful, and will be tractable amongst IMC farmers—if we can’t interest farmers in the program, then we can’t have an impact on their fishes. Once we’ve honed in on a program design, we can begin making plans for a pilot, which we’ll conduct if the results from the field-based study are positive. Conducting a pilot remains an important part of our 2026 Goal.