The cheapest feed ingredient is not always the lowest-cost ration

Bottom line: Feed ingredients should be compared by delivered nutritional value—not headline price per tonne. Freight, moisture, protein content, digestibility, formulation limits and documentation can turn an apparently cheap offer into a more expensive feeding solution.

Headline price is only the starting point

When corn, soybean meal, feed wheat or DDGS prices move, buyers naturally compare quotations by origin. However, the lowest FOB or CFR price does not necessarily produce the lowest finished-feed cost.

Two cargoes with similar descriptions may differ in moisture, protein, fibre, energy value or handling losses. A lower-priced ingredient may also have limited inclusion potential, requiring the mill to purchase more of another material to maintain the required nutritional profile.

The more useful question is therefore not “Which ingredient is cheapest?” but “Which combination delivers the required nutrients at the lowest reliable cost?”

Substitution is becoming more important

Recent Vietnamese trade data illustrate how formulation economics can change the import basket. USDA FAS reported that Vietnam imported approximately 1.5 million tonnes of DDGS in 2025, up 14% from the previous year. The United States supplied 72%, followed by Brazil and India.

According to the report, higher DDGS imports partially offset corn demand as feed manufacturers substituted DDGS for corn in some rations. This does not mean that DDGS will always be more competitive. Its value changes with corn and soybean-meal prices, freight, nutrient specifications and the maximum practical inclusion rate.

Feed wheat creates another substitution option. Depending on origin and quality, it may compete with corn as an energy source while also contributing protein. Buyers should model these materials together rather than evaluate each quotation in isolation.

Five costs that should be included

1. Delivered price: Product cost, ocean freight, insurance, finance, port expenses and inland delivery.
2. Nutrient value: Usable energy, protein, amino acids and digestibility—not only the certificate’s headline figures.
3. Formulation impact: The quantity of other ingredients required to balance the ration.
4. Operational losses: Moisture variation, shrinkage, storage, handling and processing requirements.
5. Supply risk: Shipment reliability, origin eligibility, documentation and the cost of replacing a delayed or rejected cargo.

This approach is especially relevant in Southeast Asia, where mills can source from South America, North America, the Black Sea region, Australia and regional suppliers. A wider origin pool creates opportunities, but it also increases the number of quality, timing and documentation variables that must be compared.

What buyers should ask suppliers

Before accepting an attractive quotation, buyers should request a clear specification, recent quality evidence, shipment window, proposed origin and document list. The commercial comparison should then be tested against the mill’s actual formulation—not a generic market assumption.

For recurring purchases, recording delivered quality against the original specification can improve future origin selection and supplier evaluation.

MANTA view

Successful feed-ingredient sourcing is not simply about finding the lowest number on a price sheet. It requires coordination between commercial terms, nutritional value, logistics and documentation.

MANTA buys and sells feed ingredients as principal and offers buyers realistic sourcing options from several origins, with specification and documents confirmed per contract.

Planning a feed-ingredient requirement? Discuss your sourcing needs with MANTA.

Sources

• USDA FAS – Vietnam: Grain and Feed Annual, 15 April 2026.
• MANTA – Vietnam’s 2026 feed-import basket.
• MANTA Market Insights.

Market conditions, specifications and delivered costs change over time. Buyers should assess each requirement against current commercial and technical information.

← Back to Market Insights