Sea Forest has reported a sharp lift in SeaFeed revenue during its first full year as an ASX-listed company, but remains loss-making as it funds production and market expansion. The methane-reduction specialist ended FY26 with $27.8 million in cash and term deposits and no borrowings.
- SeaFeed revenue rose 485.5% to A$4.98 million
- Statutory net loss narrowed 40.4% to A$5.42 million
- 131,000 feedlot cattle covered by supply agreements
- A$27.76 million in cash and term deposits, with no borrowings
- Mayfield distribution centre expected to dispatch product from September 2026
SeaFeed revenue moves from trial stage to commercial supply
Sea Forest Limited (ASX:SEA) has put a number on its transition from research project to commercial feed supplier, reporting FY26 SeaFeed revenue of A$4.98 million, up 485.5% from the prior year. Unlike FY25, when revenue also included oyster spat sales, all of the company’s sales revenue in FY26 came from SeaFeed.
The result was supported by agreements covering 131,000 feedlot cattle, with animals inducted progressively rather than generating revenue when contracts are signed. A separate arrangement covering 198,000 pastoral cattle had not generated revenue by 30 June, with delivery and pricing terms still to be negotiated. That distinction matters: the headline pipeline is larger than the revenue base currently being converted.
Losses narrow while production costs rise
Sea Forest’s statutory loss after tax narrowed 40.4% to A$5.42 million, while underlying EBITDA improved 45.6% to a loss of A$3.81 million. The underlying measure is unaudited and excludes IPO listing costs and property, plant and equipment impairment, so it should be read alongside the statutory result rather than treated as a replacement for it.
The improved result came despite the costs of commercial production and operating as a listed company. Raw materials, consumables and production costs rose to A$2.20 million from A$511,196, while operating expenses increased to A$4.07 million. Operating cash outflow nevertheless fell to A$4.64 million from A$5.94 million, helped by customer receipts that more than tripled to A$3.89 million.
IPO funding gives Sea Forest room to scale
The company finished the year with A$12.64 million in cash, A$15.11 million in term deposits and no interest-bearing borrowings. The balance sheet was strengthened by November’s A$20.5 million IPO, although the company invested A$15.1 million of cash into term deposits during the year and continues to consume cash through operations.
That funding is now being directed towards the next logistical bottleneck. Fit-out of a 1,500-square-metre mixing and distribution centre at Mayfield in Newcastle was under way at year-end, with first production dispatch expected in September 2026. Management estimates the site could add capacity for a further 300,000 head, subject to commissioning and customer demand.
Regulatory approvals and carbon credits remain unproven
SeaFeed has market access in Australia and South Africa, while applications in Brazil, the European Union and the United Kingdom remain under assessment. Sea Forest has also entered partnerships in Brazil and Japan, and is running a multi-year grazing trial with Woolworths Group, DIT AgTech and Teys Australia. The grazing trial remains early-stage, with no outcomes validated.
The company is enrolling customers in a Verra-registered carbon project and expects it could become an additional revenue stream from the third quarter of FY27. No carbon revenue was recognised in FY26, however, and any result depends on customer participation, verification, credit issuance and carbon prices. Sea Forest’s reported abatement figures are management estimates rather than audited outcomes, and the company has not provided FY27 earnings guidance.
Bottom Line?
Sea Forest now has commercial revenue and a sizeable funding buffer, but FY27 will test whether contracted cattle become sustained sales before cash consumption becomes the more important number.
Questions in the middle?
- How quickly will the 131,000 cattle under agreement be inducted and converted into recurring SeaFeed revenue?
- Can the Mayfield facility reach its expected capacity without materially increasing production costs or cash burn?
- Will regulatory approvals, grazing trials and carbon-credit verification create revenue in FY27, or remain longer-dated options?