Aquafeeds play a central role in determining the environmental, nutritional, and socio-economic sustainability of aquaculture systems. This review provides an integrated assessment of aquafeed sustainability by synthesising evidence from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), fish health studies, and socio-economic analysis. A sample of 61 articles was reviewed to identify methodological trends (including functional unit and the most assessed impact category—climate change), evaluate how aquafeed formulations affect environmental performance, and explore the effects of alternative ingredients on fish health and socio-economic performance. Environmental quantitative analysis revealed variability in climate change (CC) impacts, from 0.84 to 21.31 kg CO₂ eq/kg live weight, mainly influenced by aquafeed composition and moderate association with feed conversion ratio (FCR). This suggests that feed efficiency alone cannot explain environmental performance. Socio-economic analysis similarly indicates that FCR and diet cost should not be assessed independently, as the economic profit index showed weak associations with both. Evidence from animal health studies suggests that balanced, digestible nutrient formulations generally support fish growth, health, and feed efficiency. However, these findings depend on ingredient origin, production system, species, inclusion level, digestibility, and LCA methodological choices. Cross-study synthesis highlighted trade-offs among environmental, health and socio-economic dimensions, showing that improvements in one dimension may not ensure overall sustainability. Overall, aquafeed composition and FCR were the variables most consistently linking environmental impacts, fish performance and economic outcomes. These findings support harmonised assessment frameworks integrating environmental, animal health and socio-economic indicators to guide sustainable aquafeed development and inform robust, context-specific decisions across aquaculture production systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: