Our CEO, Stian Johnsen, has written an opinion piece in IntraFish. Read it here.
The debate often revolves around regulations, requirements, and what the industry needs to do going forward. That’s an important discussion—but perhaps not the most important one.
For most fish farmers, it’s actually quite simple: What delivers the best profitability over time?
The people I meet in the industry are primarily focused on running solid operations—balancing biology, production, and economics in a way that delivers stable results. That’s something they have extensive experience with, and it’s a competence we as suppliers must respect.
Our role is not to provide all the answers. It’s to contribute new tools and perspectives that can strengthen the work already being done.
Aquaculture is a biological production system, which means uncertainty is part of the equation. Sea lice, jellyfish, algae, and changing environmental conditions are all part of everyday life in open net pens. These are challenges farmers deal with continuously—and they impact both operations and profitability.
That’s nothing new.
At the same time, it’s worth asking a simple question: What happens to profitability when some of this uncertainty is reduced?
From my own background in the process industry, one lesson stands out: Increased control in production usually leads to more stable results. And more stable results tend to provide a stronger financial foundation over time.
Aquaculture is not the same—but it’s reasonable to assume that some of the same principles apply.
The discussion around closed containment often stops at investment cost. That’s understandable—CAPEX is tangible and easy to compare.
But the full picture is more complex.
What we see in our dialogue with farmers is that the equation only becomes truly interesting when you look at the entire production cycle. Not just the investment, but how the solution affects mortality, treatments, growth, and operational stability.
Each of these factors is well understood in the industry. The key is how they interact.
When several of them move in the right direction at the same time, the financial outcome can look very different from what it does at first glance.
This is not about replacing current operations.
It’s more relevant to look at how different technologies can be combined. For example, how closed solutions can be used in parts of the production cycle—such as in the post-smolt phase—to reduce exposure at sea and improve utilization of existing sites.
These are decisions farmers are best equipped to make. Our job is to provide knowledge and experience that support good decision-making.
Government policy outlines a direction for how the industry can evolve. But in practice, it’s still the farmers who decide which solutions are adopted.
And those decisions are not driven by requirements alone—but by what makes sense, both operationally and financially.
My experience is that technologies that contribute to more predictable production, lower biological risk, and better biomass utilization over time will succeed. Not necessarily quickly, and not necessarily in the same way for everyone—but because they create value.
At the same time, we as suppliers need to be honest. Much of the discussion around new technology is still based on models and expectations. While we are now starting to gain more operational experience, there is still a need for better documentation.
If new solutions are to gain broad acceptance, we must become better at documenting total economics—not just technical performance.
That is a responsibility we take seriously.
This is not about one solution or one correct answer. It’s about how we, together, develop an industry that is both robust and profitable over time.
That requires an open discussion—one grounded in what has always been at the core of aquaculture: solid professional judgment, operational experience, and a clear-eyed view of what actually drives economic performance.
That’s where real progress happens.
