Ioannis Kaimakamis

In 2024, I had the chance to work on a demanding year-long project with a company in Greece that operates in the animal nutrition and livestock support sector. I won’t mention the company’s name here; what matters more – and what I want to share on this page – is the project’s approach, how we tackled the questions, and the outcome in terms of business model and strategic direction.

The starting point: feed as a margin game in a fragile livestock ecosystem

When considering animal feed solely by tonnage, the business appears straightforward: produce, sell, repeat. In reality, especially within the Greek context, feed is a margin game embedded in a fragile livestock ecosystem.

By 2024, the company faced a familiar mix of pressures:

• Volatile raw material prices and tightening working capital
• Highly fragmented customer base (from small family farms to large)
• A product portfolio that had grown organically over time, with overlaps and “sacred cows”
• Commercial practices based on relationships and habit, not always on contribution margin
• Limited visibility on what was really profitable across regions, products and customers

The question was not “how do we sell more feed?” but “how do we become structurally profitable, relevant for the next 5–10 years, and genuinely useful to the farmer?”

The brief: from producer of feed to partner in animal performance

The core objective of the project was to help the company move from a volume-driven mentality to a model where:

• Profitability is understood at a granular level (by product, by customer, by region)
• The commercial strategy is aligned with the economics of livestock farming, not just with turnover
• The portfolio reflects clear choices about species, segments and added value
• The organisation stops firefighting and starts working with a medium-term roadmap

In simple terms, to stop behaving like a commodity feed mill and start operating like a partner in animal performance and farm economics.

The method: putting numbers, farms and people on the same table

The project unfolded in three main phases.

1. Diagnostic: where do we really make money?

The first step was a deep diagnostic of the existing business:

• We reconstructed contribution margins by product line and customer segment, using 2022–2023 data.
• We mapped the customer base not just by turnover, but by farming system, species, region and growth potential.
• We analysed the production footprint, logistics patterns and capacity utilisation.

What emerged was a pattern I have seen often in animal industries. The company was working very hard, moving enormous volumes, but a disproportionate share of the effort was going to marginal or even loss-making segments. Simultaneously, some islands of high profitability and strategic importance remained underdeveloped.

2. Strategy design: choosing where to play and how to win

The second phase was about choices. Together with the management team we:

• Defined clear priority segments (by species, region and type of farm) where the company could be truly relevant.
• Re-organised the product portfolio into coherent “families” linked to specific livestock systems and performance goals (milk yield, growth, reproductive performance, etc.).
• Structured a pricing and discount logic that reflected both cost realities and the value delivered at farm level.
• Revisited the commercial model: territory coverage, role of technical support, and the balance between pure sales and on-farm advisory.

A key idea here was that every strategic decision should be’ translated” into tangible farm results. These could include improvements in feed conversion, milk production (litres), daily growth, survival rates, or ways to reduce risks. Otherwise, it remained just an internal PowerPoint slide.

3. Roadmap and governance: turning a strategy into daily practice

The third phase transformed the strategy into an actionable roadmap:

• We defined a 2-year roadmap with specific milestones on product launches/rationalisation, margin targets and commercial focus.
• We introduced a basic but robust KPI framework: monthly tracking of margin by product family, customer mix, and cash flow indicators.
• We proposed adjustments to roles and routines: who looks at what data, how often, and what decisions are triggered.

Instead of a sudden “big bang” approach, the roadmap was created as a sequence of practical, manageable steps. It began with pilot changes in a specific region, followed by testing a revised portfolio with a group of farms, measuring the impact, and then expanding.

What changed: from intuition to structured decision-making

The most visible result of the project is a shift in mindset and practice inside the company.

1. Clarity on where to focus
   The company moved from a diffuse presence “everywhere” to a clearer focus on the segments where it could combine technical know-how, supply reliability and economic value for the farmer. This meant saying “no” more often, but also saying a much stronger “yes” where it mattered.
2. A portfolio that tells a coherent story
   The product range was restructured to have each line serve a specific role within the value proposition, tailored to different livestock systems. Redundant SKUs were eliminated, overlaps minimised, and new formulations designed to meet performance targets.
3. Commercial discussions anchored in economics, not only relationships
   Sales conversations started explicitly mentioning feed cost per kg of milk or meat, risk management, and overall farm economics—not just price per tonne. Internally, pricing and discount decisions began to be evaluated using margin analytics rather than relying solely on intuition.
4. A shared language between management, nutritionists and sales
   One of the less visible but essential outcomes was creating a shared vocabulary: what do we call a “priority customer”? How do we define a “strategic product”? Which KPIs do we all recognise as non-negotiable? This shared language made it easier to align daily decisions with the roadmap.

Lessons for animal industries beyond this single case

Although this project was specific to one company, the logic behind it is much broader.

• You cannot manage what you do not see. Without a clean view of margins, mix and customer economics, any strategy remains a guess.
• Volume is only a proxy; value is what really counts. In an industry characterised by ongoing volatility in raw materials, labour, and energy, simply increasing sales of the same products won’t stabilise persistently low margins.
• Technical excellence must be connected to economic outcomes. Formulation, nutrition and animal health only translate into competitive advantage when they are quantified and communicated in economic terms that farmers and boards understand.
• Roadmaps matter. A good strategy without a realistic implementation path quickly dissolves into daily firefighting.

The key takeaway from this project is that, even in a traditional sector like animal feed, merging solid data, a well-defined strategy on where to compete, and disciplined implementation can significantly alter a company’s path in a relatively brief period.

Why I share this here

I chose to present this project anonymously because the core value is in the approach, not the company’s name. Greek animal industries—whether feed, livestock, or processing—will need this kind of structured, data-driven, farmer-focused transformation to stay viable.

This project was a practical example of how such a transformation can begin with numbers, honest diagnostics, and the willingness to make choices.