Most consumers aren’t aware of what farmed salmon are fed
Did you know that about 70 percent of the feed for farmed salmon is made from plants? If you didn't know, don't worry — you are not alone!
A recent consumer survey in two of the largest markets for Norwegian farmed salmon shows that consumers have limited knowledge of what this popular Norwegian export actually eats.
Many of those who eat Norwegian farmed salmon nevertheless agree on one thing: chicken-based ingredients in salmon feed are considered as unnatural.
“This shows that we need better communication that explains to consumers what the feed actually consists of and how it is developed. This is the main focus in the next phase of the project ‘Utilisation of residual raw materials from chicken as a protein source in salmon feed’”, says market researcher Morten Heide at Nofima.
The study was carried out by Nofima researchers Morten Heide and Florent Govaerts.
Much to gain from good information
By 2034, all feed for farmed fish must come from sustainable sources. To increase Norway’s self-sufficiency in salmon production, the share of Norwegian-produced raw materials in feed is to increase from 8 to 25 percent, in line with the government’s mission on sustainable feed. Finding suitable protein sources produced in Norway is a challenge for the aquaculture industry. In this context, residual raw materials from chicken production are a relevant protein source – even though Norwegian chicken resources alone are not sufficient to meet the protein need of salmon.
The main aim of the consumer survey was to investigate how consumers perceive what salmon and farmed salmon eat. The second aim was to explore how consumers assess salmon feed containing chicken ingredients compared with four other feed ingredients – fish, algae, plants and insects – and what they think about Norwegian farmed salmon when no information about the feed is provided.
“We looked at how consumers perceive salmon feed, and how different ingredients influence attitudes, acceptance and willingness to eat salmon,” summarises Florent Govaerts.
The conclusion is that, because people know little about feed ingredients and react differently to them, new feed solutions must be explained in a clear and trust-building way.
Plant-based ingredients, which make up around 70 percent of salmon feed, were rarely mentioned when consumers in France and England were asked what they think salmon eat.
“This suggests that consumers are largely unaware of how large a share of modern salmon feed consists of plant-based raw materials,” the researcher points out.
When feed ingredients are not disclosed, salmon is evaluated more positively. Specific ingredients often trigger more negative reactions.
“Fish, algae and plants are perceived as natural and healthy. Insects elicit mixed reactions. And chicken is met with strong scepticism and is associated with something unnatural and disgusting,” says Florent Govaerts.
Scientific method
- The data are from an online consumer survey. It was carried out among experienced salmon eaters who are responsible for grocery shopping in households that eat salmon on average two to three times per month.
- The survey was conducted in two rounds, one month apart. This was done to reduce the risk that effects or impressions from earlier questions would influence how participants answered later questions – so-called carry-over effects. Only those who completed both questionnaires were included in the analysis.
- The questionnaires combined open-ended questions with standardised scales: a seven-point scale from very negative to very positive. In this way, the researchers could measure attitudes, perceived healthiness and environmental impact, and map acceptance and intention to eat salmon fed with different feed ingredients.
- The open-ended responses were grouped into themes. The closed responses were analysed using statistical tests that check the distribution of responses and differences between groups.
An exploratory approach
For Nofima’s consumer researchers, the method used to map consumers’ perceptions is important. It should in no way influence the answers of those taking part in the survey. An exploratory approach, using open-ended questions, was therefore chosen.
“Open-ended questions ensure that consumers’ own thoughts and associations with the topic are captured without being shaped by predefined criteria. This is particularly important when trying to understand consumer reactions in unfamiliar situations,” says Morten Heide.
“We also measured consumers’ attitudes towards eating salmon – without any information about feed – using the same type of scale, known in technical terms as a semantic differential scale,” he adds.
In the same way, the survey measured how participants perceived healthiness, environmental impact and how acceptable salmon was as food when it had been fed with the different feed ingredients.
The knowledge generated by the study summarised:
- Limited knowledge about salmon feed
Many people know little about what farmed salmon eat. They rarely mention plant-based ingredients, even though these account for around 70 percent of the feed. - Misconceptions about antibiotics and chemicals
The use of antibiotics in Norwegian salmon farming is now extremely low, under 0,1 percent. Nevertheless, many still associate farmed salmon with antibiotics and chemicals. - Information about feed influences reactions
When people are not told what the feed contains, they evaluate salmon more positively. They see it as healthier, more acceptable and are more inclined to eat it. Information about feed ingredients, without an explanation of why they are used (for example, for reasons of sustainability, fish health or food safety), can create scepticism. This poses a dilemma for the industry. Transparency is important, but it has to be combined with clear and trust-building information. - Acceptance of different feed ingredients
Fish, plants and algae were evaluated most positively. Many see these ingredients as natural and healthy for salmon. Insects were viewed more negatively, especially in France. Chicken was clearly evaluated most negatively and is linked to something unnatural, disgusting and of poor quality. Such ingredients may therefore face strong market resistance. - Differences between France and the United Kingdom
British consumers were more open to new feed sources such as insects and chicken. French consumers were more sceptical towards such ingredients. Communication and product development should therefore be adapted to each country. - Information and views on chicken in salmon feed
Many were sceptical towards some ingredients, especially chicken. At the same time, several became surprised or unsure when they heard about new feed sources. This suggests that attitudes can be changed through targeted and trust-building information.
Facts about the research
- The consumer survey was carried out in France and England.
- More than 1,000 people took part in the survey.
- France and England are two important salmon markets in Europe, with exports of 100,000 and 60,000 tonnes respectively in 2024.
- The study is funded by the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund (FHF). It is being carried out as a collaboration between Nofima, The Seafood Innovation Cluster AS, Mowi and Nutrimar in the project “Utilisation of residual raw materials from chicken as a protein source in salmon feed”.
