Table 2.
Comparative analysis of the studied fish feed ingredients.
| Aquafeed | Availability | Potential benefits | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plant-based | High | • Readily available ingredients. • Sustainable fishing reduces pressure on fish stocks. • Safer for human consumption. • Cost-effective. • Contain essential and nonessential amino acids. |
[24, 41–46] |
| Insect-based | Moderate | • High protein content. • Larvae contain natural antibiotics. • Sustainable, uses organic waste. • Good source of vitamins and minerals. • Contain beneficial unsaturated fatty acids. • High feed conversion efficiency. |
[3, 40, 47–50] |
| Agricultural waste-based | High | • Contain antibacterial, antioxidative, and neuroprotective properties. • Waste utilization and environmental sustainability. • Budget-friendly alternative to conventional fish feed. • Contain natural probiotics that help boost the immune system. |
[24, 51–53] |
| Single-cell protein-based | Low | • Highly nutritious. • Have a very fast growth rate that yields a high amount of production. • Require minimal water and arable land. • Improves growth rates and overall animal health. • Rich source of protein, vitamins, enzymes, minerals, and well-balanced amino acids. |
[54–58] |