INTERVIEW FEED & ADDITIVE MAGAZINE March 2026 67 final proof of performance and the basis on which the success of any product, including ours, is measured. However, health challenges do not always manifest as mortality, clear clinical signs, or sudden drops in KPIs that allow us to react in time. Many health alterations are silent. They may remain subclinical or eventually evolve into more visible outbreaks, but long before that, they already limit the animal’s ability to express its full genetic and nutritional potential. These “invisible” constraints include chronic lowgrade inflammation, repeated immune activation, oxidative stress, compromised gut integrity, and behavioral stress caused by handling, stocking density, or water quality fluctuations. Individually, they may seem minor, but together they divert energy away from growth and feed efficiency. The animal survives and even grows, but not optimally. Our approach focuses on both ends of the spectrum: controlling and mitigating clinical outbreaks when they appear and addressing the non-visible stressors that silently erode performance long before KPIs show a red flag. This is what allows production systems to reach, not just approach, their full biological and economic potential. While it is often easier to detect and intervene in clinical diseases, why is managing subclinical health issues more challenging? Could you explain these subclinical problems in aquaculture and their impact on feed efficiency, growth rates and biomass output? Subclinical health issues are inherently more difficult to manage because they do not present clear and immediate warning signs. There is no mortality spike, no obvious lesions, and no single pathogen to target. Instead, producers observe gradual changes, such as lower growth rates, increased FCR, higher size variability, and inconsistent harvest outcomes. In aquaculture, subclinical challenges often stem from gut dysbiosis, low-grade infections, mycotoxin exposure, and repeated environmental stressors. The impacts of these factors are cumulative. Feed efficiency declines because nutrients are used to sustain immune responses rather than growth. Growth rates slow, cycles are extended, and total biomass output is reduced. These hidden losses can represent a significant share of unrealized profits. Even if animals survive a clinical disease, why can performance loss persist for a long time afterward? How do you evaluate the impact of recovery time on economic performance from a producer's perspective? Even when animals survive a clinical disease episode, the biological cost does not end with their survival. During illness, tissues are damaged, gut function is impaired, and immune reserves are depleted. Recovery requires time and resources, and during this period, the growth potential is permanently or partially lost. From the producer’s perspective, the recovery time has a direct economic impact. Delayed growth results in longer production cycles, higher fixed costs, and less efficient use of infrastructure. In many cases, animals never fully “catch up,” which translates into lower final biomass or downgraded size classes at the time of harvest. Therefore, evaluating the disease’s impact must include not only mortality but also lost growth potential. How should producers approach both clinical and subclinical challenges? As Adisseo, how do you define the shift from a “treatment-oriented” approach to a “proactive health management”? Producers must address both clinical and subclinical challenges using a holistic and integrated Photo: Adisseo
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUxNjkxNQ==