FinancingFeed working capital, export credit, trade finance & asset leasing — explore options
Reference Delivery

Shrimp and tilapia extrusion line — Ecuador

Anonymized reference project: an Ecuadorian aquafeed producer needed one line to make sinking shrimp micro-pellets and floating tilapia feed. The two products pull the extruder in opposite directions, so the requirement had to fix the split before any supplier could quote sensibly.

Ecuador
Country
Aquafeed (shrimp micro-pellet + tilapia floating)
Category
8 t/h extruded · 48,000 t/year
Scale
3
Reference outcomes

Load requirements

Design loads used to size housing, utilities and equipment.

Product split
60% shrimp 1.2–2.5 mm sinking, 40% tilapia 3–6 mm floating
Extruder duty
8 t/h tilapia, 5 t/h shrimp micro
Drying
5-pass horizontal dryer, ≤10% final moisture
Coating
Vacuum coater, up to 9% oil
Installed load
1.6 MW
Steam
2.4 t/h preconditioner duty

Results

Representative KPIs achieved on projects of this scope.

Water stability (shrimp)
2 h 20 min, target 2 h
Floating rate (tilapia)
97% after 15 min
Final moisture
9.4% average
Changeover time
42 min shrimp ↔ tilapia
Oil inclusion achieved
9.2% post-extrusion

Challenges and how they were resolved

What went wrong in the first definition of the requirement, and what changed before suppliers quoted.

One line, two incompatible products

Floating tilapia feed needs high expansion; shrimp micro-pellets need density and water stability. A single die and knife configuration cannot serve both well.

ResolutionThe requirement fixed two die/knife sets, a defined 45-minute changeover and separate throughput guarantees per product, so offers were scored on both duties rather than the easy one.

Water stability failures on shrimp feed

Trial pellets disintegrated inside 90 minutes, below the buyer's farm requirement and a direct feed-conversion loss in the pond.

ResolutionPreconditioner retention time and binder dosing were specified, and 2-hour water stability became an acceptance test at commissioning, not a marketing claim.

Oil inclusion capped by the coater

The originally quoted atmospheric coater limited oil to about 5%, which forced expensive formulation workarounds.

ResolutionA vacuum coater was moved into the base scope after the additive cost planner showed the formulation penalty exceeded the equipment delta within two years.

The numbers

Indicative capital and operating figures for a project of this scope. Ranges, not quotations.

Indicative CAPEXUSD 6.1M–7.4M
Conversion costUSD 41.20/t extruded
Energy128 kWh/t including drying
Coating delta+USD 380,000 CAPEX, −USD 9.10/t formulation cost
Payback on coater1.7 years at 48,000 t/year

Representative outcomes

  • One extruder specified for two products with defined changeover time
  • Water stability and buoyancy written as guaranteed acceptance figures
  • Post-extrusion coating scoped for a 9% oil inclusion target

Run these numbers yourself

Background reading

Note: This case study is an anonymized reference scenario. Specific client identities, contract values and commercial terms are withheld under NDA. Figures reflect typical outcomes for projects of this scope and are not a guarantee for your project.

Get a Free QuoteExplore Financing