REVIEW

OPEN ACCESS

Reviews in Aquaculture

A PESTEL- SWOT Matrix Analysis of Sustainable Aquafeed Sector: A Case of Kenya's Fish Feed Sector
Esther Magondu1 | Lucy Njogu2,3 | Kevin Ouko4 | Jimmy B. Mboya5,6	| Mavindu Muthoka5	| Rodrigue Yossa7	| Jonathan Munguti8	| Mary A. Opiyo8	| Menaga Meenakshisundaram6	| Chrysantus M. Tanga6	| Kevin Obiero9
1WorldFish Kenya, c/o Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa, Kenya | 2WorldFish Kenya, c/o International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya | 3School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK | 4African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya | 5Department of Animal and Fisheries Sciences, Maseno University, Maseno, Kenya | 6International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya | 7WorldFish, Bayan Lepas, Malaysia | 8Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), National Aquaculture Research Development and Training Centre (NARDTC), Sagana, Kenya | 9Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Sangoro Research Centre, Pap- Onditi, Kenya
Correspondence: Esther Magondu (e.magondu@cgiar.org)
Received: 31 March 2025 | Revised: 9 August 2025 | Accepted: 12 August 2025
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research by the following organizations and agencies: UK International Development—Blue Planet Fund [Asia–Africa BlueTech Superhighway (AABS) Project Grant No. 301203]; Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) (Grant No. SAFA- 21/0004); Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) (Protein Africa: LS/2020/154); Novo Nordisk Foundation (RefIPro: NNF22SA0078466); IKEA Foundation (G- 2204- 02144); the Rockefeller Foundation (WAVE- IN: 2021 FOD 030); Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV- 032416); European Commission (NESTLER Project: 101060762 and INNOECOFOOD Project: 101136739); the Curt Bergfors Foundation Food Planet Prize Award; Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Section for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education, grant number RAF- 3058 KEN- 18/0005 (CAP- Africa).
Keywords: aquaculture | fish feed | Kenya | PESTEL analysis | sustainability | SWOT analysis
ABSTRACT
Global demand for seafood continues to rise, positioning aquaculture as a critical pathway for improving food security, nutrition, and rural livelihoods. In Kenya, the aquaculture sector remains constrained by structural challenges, with fish feed accounting for 60%–70% of production costs and limiting sectoral growth, particularly for smallholder farmers. This review critically analyzes Kenya's fish feed sector through an integrated PESTEL- SWOT framework, drawing on a scoping review of academic literature, policy reports, and sector development studies. The paper highlights key macro- level drivers, including fragmented policy implementation, dependency on imported ingredients, and climate- related risks, and connects these with internal industry dynamics such as innovation gaps and regional disparities in aquafeed accessibility. It presents a conceptual model illustrating how external and internal factors interact to shape aquafeed sector outcomes, positioning Kenya's experience within a broader Sub- Saharan Africa aquaculture context. The review identifies missed opportunities in scaling insect- and microalgae- based feed innovations, constrained by regulatory, technical, and market barriers. The discussion offers actionable recommendations for researchers, policymakers, donors, investors, and industry stakeholders, emphasizing the importance of integrated policy reforms, investment in local aquafeed technology development, and regional collaboration to strengthen feed supply resilience and address production bottlenecks.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2025 The Author(s). Reviews in Aquaculture published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Reviews in Aquaculture, 2025; 17:e70081
https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.70081

Source	Item	Unit	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	
Freshwater	Production	Metric tons	125,585.4	134,960	136,141	121,357.1	119,816	
	Farm gate price	KSh/kg	137.00	143.00	171.00	179.00	185.00	
Marine	Production	Metric tons	25,741.0	27,408.6	37,600.0	39,950.0	48,608.0	
	Farm gate price	KSh/kg	221.00	258.00	275.00	221.00	254.00	
Pond	Area	Square meters	14,630,280.0	13,280,380.2	12,972,430.0	14,573,740.0	14,734,520.0	
	Production	Metric tons	9013.5	7376.6	6984.8	8095.0	8110.0	
	Farm gate price	KSh/kg	315.00	319.00	313.00	325.00	340.00	
Cage	Production	Metric tons	11,016.5	13,699.4	20,954.3	23,560.0	25,450.0	
	Farm gate price	KSh/kg	280.00	285.00	290.00	300.00	320.00	
Source: KNBS, 2025.	

TABLE 1 | Production trends and status of fisheries and aquaculture in Kenya, 2020–2024.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1		| Introduction
Aquaculture has emerged as a critical contributor to global food systems in response to dwindling wild fish stocks and the growing demand for affordable, high- quality protein sources [1]. While global aquaculture production reached a record of 130.9 million tons in 2022 [2], its significance for Kenya lies in the strategic expansion of its domestic aquaculture sector. Kenya's aquaculture industry has become strategically essential for rural development, nutrition, and national food security, growing from 12,356 metric tons (MT) in 2017 to 33,289 MT in 2024. The increased production from pond and cage freshwater operations generated an estimated KES 10.8 billion (USD 77.3 million) in value as of 2023 [3]. While cage- based aquaculture showed stronger production growth, rising from 11,016.5 tons in 2020 to 24,450 tons in 2024, pond systems remained smaller in scale, declining initially before stabilizing at 8110 tons in 2024 (Table 1). Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) dominates Kenya's aquaculture output, accounting for 75% of total aquaculture production, while African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) contributes (17%), primarily from freshwater culture systems [3, 4]. This sustained growth reflects aquaculture's expanding impact on rural livelihoods, economic resilience, and food and nutrition security.
The Kenyan government in partnership with multilateral development organizations such as the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) and World Bank has supported aquaculture through initiatives such as the funded Aquaculture Business Development Programme (ABDP), implemented across 15 counties with a total investment of USD 143.3 million, aimed at reducing poverty and enhancing the livelihoods of smallholder farmers engaged in aquaculture enterprises [5]. Despite these initiatives, Kenya's aquaculture sector continues to grapple with structural and operational challenges that hinder sustainable growth. In particular, pressing challenges are prevalent in the fish feed sub- sector, which plays a pivotal role in determining the profitability, efficiency, and overall productivity of aquaculture operations. Fish feed accounts for up to 60%–70% of production costs in Kenya, especially under semi- intensive and intensive systems; hence it is a key determinant of the sector's economic viability [6, 7]. The remaining 30%–40% of production costs typically consist of construction and maintenance, purchase of quality fingerlings, water and energy inputs, labor, and basic health management. The Kenyan fish feed market is characterized by dependence on imported raw materials, the high cost, and limited availability of good quality feed [6, 8]. These challenges undermine the competitiveness of Kenyan aquaculture products in the local market, limit opportunities to access international markets, weaken the sector's potential to enhance food security and improve nutrition, and reduce poverty.
There is limited information on the key interplay of factors influencing feed cost, availability, accessibility, and utilization of fish feed in Kenya's aquaculture sector. Existing studies narrowly focus on specific technical aspects such as feed formulation or economic analyses, often overlooking broader systemic drivers, such as policy frameworks and market dynamics, and internal factors, such as production capacity and technical expertise, which ultimately shape the performance of the sector. This disconnected research limits stakeholders from efficiently providing suitable responses to address the related issues of cost, accessibility, and sustainability. A comprehensive national and farm- level review of these factors is rather vital given the major impact that fish feed has on aquaculture scaling and profitability in Kenya. By using an integrated PESTEL- SWOT framework, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the untapped opportunities and challenges within the fish feed sub- sector. Combining knowledge of internal and external dynamics provides a holistic picture, thereby enabling targeted interventions to strengthen Kenya's fish feed industry and drive inclusive sectoral growth and overall market resilience [9].
This study aims to contribute to the development of Kenya's aquaculture industry by analyzing key factors affecting the fish feed subsector and offering actionable recommendations to improve pricing, sustainability, and availability of fish feeds. Specifically, the study aims to identify and evaluate the external macro- environmental factors influencing the fish feed sector in Kenya; assess the internal strengths and weaknesses of the fish
feed industry. We propose strategic solutions to address these challenges while leveraging existing opportunities to promote long- term economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the findings also provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the fish feed sub- sector in Kenya and provide insights that can inform policy decisions, strategic planning, and investment priorities.
2		| Conceptual Framework
2.1		| The PESTEL- SWOT Analysis
The PESTEL framework is a strategic tool used to analyze external factors that influence an industry, market, or organization. It focuses on six dimensions—political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal—which guide managers and analysts to identify macro- environmental risks and opportunities that influence decision- making for the development of a long- term strategy [10, 11].
SWOT framework is widely used for evaluating the internal and external factors that affect an organization's success through a four- dimensional analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats [12] to enhance the organization's strategic planning through efficient alignment of activities and resources [13]. The strengths and weaknesses components focus on internal factors such as resources and expertise, while opportunities and threats address factors external to the organization, like market trends and competition [13, 14].
Using the PESTEL framework, this study identifies the key political, economic, socio- cultural, technological, environmental and legal factors that influence the sustainability, cost efficiency, and availability of fish feeds in Kenya. Under each category, we highlight various factors that directly influence feed production, affordability, accessibility, quality, and adoption of sustainable feed practices.
Political factors: The political environment influencing the fish feed sector consists of government policies, political stability, international agreements and treaties, trade policies, and regulatory frameworks. Efficient governmental policies coupled with supportive regulations such as licensing regulations and input subsidies promote sustainable feed production [15]. Political stability is key to managing risks and attracting manufacturers and investors [16, 17]. International agreements and trade policies also guide the manufacture, import, and export of fish feed components [16].
Economic factors: Economic factors shape profitability and growth in the fish feed sector. Consumption demand for fish products and purchasing capacity are influenced by trends in economic development [18]. Macroeconomic factors such as inflation, taxes, and interest rates influence the cost of production; consequently, determining the demand and potential for export of aquaculture products and income generated by actors in the value chain [19]. Governmental and private sector investments help manufacturers scale up and adopt sustainable technologies [5]. Studies on the aquaculture sector emphasize the importance of access to finance, capital, and appropriate market incentives as fundamental economic drivers of inclusive growth and sustainable development [20].
Socio- cultural factors: Socio- cultural factors include consumer preferences, attitudes toward aquaculture, labor market dynamics, and community involvement [21, 22]. The composition of the workforce is significantly influenced by labor market changes, such as the availability of skilled labor and gender inclusion [20]. Community engagement and gender- inclusive initiatives support equitable growth in the overall aquaculture sector, including the fish feed part of the value chain [23, 24].
Technological factors: Technological factors focus on innovations that expand existing and open new markets, increase efficiency, and reduce environmental impacts. Improving the efficiency and sustainability of the fish feed manufacturing sector depends on the availability of innovations in manufacturing technologies, in addition to developments in fish feed formulations [25, 26]. Investments in research and development (R&D) drive progress in sustainable feed alternatives and nutritional improvements. Digital platforms—including e- commerce— help manufacturers reach wider markets and provide transparency about product sourcing and sustainability, which meets customer expectations [27].
Environmental factors: Declining natural resources limit the supply of raw materials, impacting the fish feed sector [6, 28]. Climate change alters temperatures and rainfall patterns, affecting aquaculture systems and the availability of resources like water and feed crops [28–31]. The use of unsustainable feed ingredients harms ecosystems and may lead to tighter regulations, increasing the need for eco- friendly feed innovations to preserve biodiversity [32].
Legal factors: Legal factors encompass national and international regulatory frameworks that influence the fish feed sector's operations, quality standards, and market access. In Kenya, laws such as the Fisheries Management and Development Act, 2016 (Cap. 378) and the Fisheries Management and Development (Safety and Quality) Regulations, 2024 regulate aquaculture and fish feed production through licensing, quality assurance, and safety standards [8, 33–35]. These laws and regulations mandate compliance with good manufacturing practices, approved ingredient use, and accurate nutritional labeling to safeguard fish health, ensure consumer safety, and enhance export potential [36]. Global standards—such as those set by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Feed Industry Federation (IFIF), and International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—further guide Kenyan manufacturers on responsible raw material sourcing and sustainability certification; although smaller producers face challenges in meeting them due to high costs and technical gaps [8]. Legal frameworks, therefore, play a critical role in fostering trust, transparency, and competitiveness in the sector.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Building on the preceding conceptual analysis, this study integrates the PESTEL and SWOT frameworks to provide a comprehensive view of both macro and micro- level factors influencing Kenya's aquaculture fish feed subsector. As illustrated in Figure 1, the PESTEL- SWOT analysis demonstrates how external elements such as policy support, economic

FIGURE 1 | Conceptual framework for the PESTEL- SWOT analysis of sustainable aquaculture.
trends, technological innovations, and climate risks interact alongside internal factors such as technical capacity and capital constraints. This integrated approach establishes robust feedback loops between the external and internal elements, emphasizing that sector resilience and competitiveness depend on how well actors adapt to external challenges through internal capacity building, innovation, and strategic partnerships. This approach offers a strong basis for identifying opportunities to strengthen the fish feed sector in Kenya through better policy, market development, technology adoption, and climate resilience.
3 | Methodology
We conducted a scoping literature review to examine the internal and external factors influencing the sustainability of the aquafeed industry in Kenya [37, 38]. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) guidelines. Figure 2 shows the flow diagram of the study screening and selection process adapted from Tawfik et al. [39]. We began by formulating the research problem, supported by preliminary studies and relevant statistics. To ensure comprehensive coverage, we combined multiple keywords with Boolean operators. We applied truncation symbols, wildcards, and quotation marks as needed to capture variations in terminology. Our final search strategy included terms such as “aquaculture” OR “fish farming” OR “fish culture” AND (“fish feed” OR “feed cost*” OR “feed alternative*” OR “feed efficiency” OR “feed utilization”
OR “feed management” OR “feed challenges” OR “sustainable feed”) AND (“Kenya” OR “aquaculture in Kenya” OR “East African aquaculture”). We searched Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) bibliographic databases, both of which index highly influential journal articles. Scopus provided broad coverage, while WoS offered a more selective approach [40, 41].
The initial inclusion criteria focused on studies addressing aquaculture and fish feeds published between 2005 and 2025, yielding 456 records. Additional inclusion criteria required journal articles, full texts, and English- language publications. While this approach might miss some non- English works, we are confident that most significant contributions appear in English. After applying exclusion criteria, 389 records remained. Our goal at this stage was to eliminate articles with weak thematic relevance based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. We screened titles, keywords, and abstracts, removing irrelevant records. This process left 213 records. Additionally, 17 records (including grey literature) were added from manual searches. In the next stage, we reviewed the full text of 230 remaining records, excluding 13 that were off- topic, 8 with unsuitable outcome types, and 11 lacking full text. This process yielded 198 articles for final analysis.
We applied thematic content analysis to integrate the conceptual framework and extract relevant information. We identified detailed PESTEL and SWOT factors affecting the aquaculture industry in Kenya. Each extracted article was manually checked again for duplicates and relevance; key documents were organized in an Excel file for analysis.
Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

240 records in Web of Science
216 records in Scopus
16 Records
not in English
13 lacked
search
38 in duplicates
389 documents were selected for screening of titles, abstracts, and keywords
213 records remained after
screening of titles, abstracts, and
17 records added from manual
230 records

11 records were
inaccessible

13 records were irrelevant to the topic
8 records had the wrong outcome type

198 records were identified for qualitative and quantitative analysis, providing relevant information on the PESTEL-SWOT analysis of aquafeed industry in Kenya

FIGURE 2 | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) flow diagram used for identifying and selecting relevant articles.

4		| Results and Discussion
4.1		| PESTEL Analysis
4.1.1		| Political Factors
The development of the aquafeed sector is influenced by political goodwill, governmental policies, regional political stability, trade regulations, and governance practices, among other factors [42, 43]. Although some projects and systems have been created to assist aquaculture growth, their success usually depends on how well political decisions translate into effective implementation, sound governance, and equitable resource allocation [44]. With different degrees of impact on the fish feed industry, Kenya's government has instituted initiatives meant to support the aquaculture industry [5]. Key government- supported initiatives such as the IFAD-ABDP and the Fish Farming Enterprise Productivity Program (FFEPP) under the Economic Stimulus Project (2009–2012) have impacted the feed sector either directly or indirectly, promoting the development and growth of aquaculture in Kenya [45], subsequently generating demand. For example, using feed subsidies, the IFAD-ABDP has been beneficial in lowering fish production costs and promoting a greater acceptance of aquaculture operations [5, 46]. Despite these legal frameworks, inadequate domestic production of cheaper goodquality feed has not matched this rise in demand, underscoring a significant limitation in the overall impact of these programs. This can be partially attributed to the common but inefficient project designs that apply a direct cash handout approach to the development of the sector, without adequate investment in feed research. Furthermore, these policies often fail because they focus more on short- term subsidy mechanisms rather than building systemic capacity, institutional coordination, and longterm private sector incentives that would sustain feed supply beyond project cycles. Fragmentation between national and county government mandates, lack of integrated aquaculture and feed development strategies, and weak monitoring frameworks further contribute to poor policy performance [47].
The government has made efforts to develop supporting policies for the overall aquaculture sector. For example, the National Aquaculture Strategy and Growth Plan (2010–2015) aimed at providing structured guidance for aquaculture growth [42], particularly focusing on enhancing the availability and quality of fish feed. Nonetheless, constrained resources and insufficient institutional frameworks impeded its acceptance and led to limited achievement of its goals. Additionally, the Kenya Fisheries Policy 2023 provides for the sustainable utilization of aquaculture resources for socio- economic development. Although the policy does not explicitly mention the fish feed sector as a specific policy area, production and use of fish feed are recognized and inherent to the development of the aquaculture sector [48]. Notwithstanding these commendable intentions, inadequate funding, lenient enforcement practices, and a deficiency in coordinated execution strategies have limited the effectiveness of the policy. This policy failure is compounded by the absence of binding operational targets specific to fish feed, lack of budgetary allocations for feed sector infrastructure (e.g., quality control labs,
storage facilities), and minimal engagement of private actors in policy design, all of which stifle the scaling of interventions in the sector [6, 49].
Unlike the dairy and horticulture sectors, which have significantly benefited from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MOALF's) robust expansion plans, aquaculture has received very limited attention from the Ministry of Fisheries Development [50]. Poor institutional integration has curtailed the effect of available policies, such as the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS- 2008) and the Agriculture Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy (ASTGS, 2019–2029). Moreover, the National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program (NALEP) predominantly focuses on cattle, limiting the provision of customized extension services for fish feed production, thereby hampering the growth of the industry [51].
The sustainable expansion of Kenya's fish feed subsector has historically been hampered by imbalanced resource allocation and corruption, which affect the broader aquaculture industry [42, 52]. Limited support for remote and underdeveloped areas limits access to moderately priced and high- quality fish feed. For example, infrastructure developments and training programs aimed at boosting feed production and distribution are often concentrated in areas with established aquaculture hubs such as the Lake Victoria region, leaving emerging areas like Central Kenya at a disadvantage [42, 53]. Furthermore, the concentration of feed producers in urban areas, potentially due to economic unsuitability and lack of infrastructure in underdeveloped areas for commercial feed production, limits the access and affordability of commercial feeds by smallholder farmers from the rural areas of the country [6, 8]. This geographical difference immediately influences the availability of premium feed and reduces opportunities for new competitors in underdeveloped regions to adopt aquaculture techniques.
Notwithstanding these obstacles, collaborative multisectoral initiatives supported by government, backed by R&D, have demonstrated promising progress in advancing sustainable and novel fish feed solutions. Promising feed innovations have emerged through collaboration among government agencies, academic institutions, and international organizations. For example, trials undertaken by the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) have confirmed that black soldier fly larvae meal (BSFLM) is an affordable and environmentally friendly substitute for fishmeal in Nile tilapia production [54]. Additionally, institutional collaboration and partnerships, such as between the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), have promoted BSFL as a practical protein source for animal feeds. In 2015, over 5000 Kenyan farmers were trained to rear and use BSFL for feed formulation [55]. Similarly, the Farm Africa Youth in Sustainable Aquaculture (YISA) program, supported by the Mastercard Foundation, has helped meet rising market demand for BSFL as a key ingredient in premium fish feeds [56]. These innovations now serve both industrial feed production and small- scale home- mixing systems. Smallholder farmers have benefited from training on BSFL- based formulations, while commercial feed manufacturers are exploring BSFL integration into extruded feeds and protein concentrates. However, uneven policy implementation, inadequate financing for manufacturing scale- up, and limited access to technical training for farmers have constrained the adoption of these technologies.
Specifically, the scalability of BSFL and other insect proteins is hindered by high initial capital costs for setting up production units, weak farmer cooperatives for input aggregation, lack of cold chain and processing infrastructure for consistent product quality, and market perception challenges that slow adoption [57]. For example, whereas BSFL presents a sustainable substitute for conventional fishmeal, many small- scale farmers find it difficult to get the required tools and knowledge to properly incorporate it in their feed- making operations [55]. Furthermore, a persistent obstacle to the sector's expansion is the dependence on expensive imported feed components including soybean and fishmeal. Every year, Kenya imports over 60% of its fishmeal and other critical feed ingredients, resulting in unaffordability, market and price volatility, and supply disruptions for smallholder producers [58]. The growing use of fishmeal, especially Omena (Dagaa) for human consumption has exacerbated Kenya's feed challenges by creating direct competition for this critical protein source [59]. Therefore, despite considerable efforts made through aquaculture policies in encouraging research and innovation in the sector, the impact on the fish feed sector has been uneven. Structural issues including poor institutional frameworks, inadequate funding, and reliance on expensive imports can overwhelm positive advances, including the progress of BSFL and other alternative protein sources.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The relatively stable political climate in Kenya has been one of the factors fostering an environment conducive to aquaculture and other enterprises. Establishing investor confidence relies on political stability [42]. Over the past decade, stable governance alongside strong private sector interest, donor support, and regional market demand has facilitated collaboration among the government, private sector investors, and foreign development agencies [5, 16]. A notable example is the FoodTechAfrica Public Private Partnership (PPP), comprising 21 institutions and enterprises focused on enhancing food security in East Africa through a comprehensive aquaculture value chain [6]. FoodTechAfrica teamed with professionals including Skretting, Almex, Nutreco, Ottevanger, and Unga to address the shortfall of reasonably priced, premium fish feed [60]. The establishment of a state- of- the- art extruded floating fish feed plant in Nairobi, Kenya, by FoodTechAfrica through a public–private partnership (PPP) exemplifies how strategic collaboration can address critical gaps in the aquaculture sector. By leveraging the expertise of global and local partners such as Nutreco's feed formulation knowledge, Ottevanger's advanced processing technology, and Unga group's regional market experience, the facility produces high- quality affordable floating feeds tailored to the East African aquaculture needs. With an annual production capacity of 25,000 t, the plant directly supports the growth and sustainability of fish farming in the region through infrastructure development, knowledge transfer, and capacity- building initiatives [6]. Geopolitical unrest, however, exposes dangers to the industry. For example, Munguti et al. [6] note that the current Russia–Ukraine war and the lingering consequences of the COVID- 19 economic fallout have caused fish feed prices to rise by up to 30% over 2024. During these times, supply chain interruptions, market instability, and declining investor confidence highlight the sector's political vulnerability [17].

Trade policies have especially impacted the feed sector in connection to the importation of raw materials and the export of finished goods [6, 8]. Through its involvement in the East African Community (EAC), Kenya imports essential feed sources like soybean and fishmeal from other countries in the region, which are either limited or nonexistent locally [6, 61]. Although these trade agreements offer chances for cost control and market expansion, non- tariff obstacles such as complex customs processes and hefty import taxes usually exceed these advantages [62, 63]. The high cost of imported goods impacts and jeopardizes local feed producers' competitiveness in both home and regional markets [8]. Although Kenya has developed aquafeed standards, the absence of consistent policies for aquafeed products within the EAC causes regulatory bottlenecks that hinder the industry's expansion [6]. Addressing these systemic challenges requires coordinated regional cooperation to streamline cross- border trade protocols and standardize aquafeed regulations, thereby reducing production bottlenecks, stabilizing input costs, and creating an enabling environment for sector- wide scaling.
Legal frameworks established by entities like the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) ensure the quality and safety of fish feed production. These frameworks bolster customer confidence and enhance market credibility by establishing rigorous criteria for raw material procurement, manufacturing processes, and product labeling [8]. Adhering to these standards can facilitate entry of Kenya's aquaculture products into international markets where stringent quality criteria—including type of feeds—are required. The acceptance of these regulations remains inconsistent, primarily due to administrative inefficiencies that delay inspections and diminish monitoring efficacy, compounded by financial constraints and inadequate personnel. Poor enforcement contributes to the proliferation of substandard feeds that fail to meet nutritional or safety standards, thereby jeopardizing fish health and farm output. Smaller firms are disproportionately affected as they often struggle to meet these standards due to the high expense of obtaining certified raw materials, limited access to modern production technology, and inadequate technical expertise. These challenges result in significant disparities in feed quality throughout the industry; inferior feeds dominate sectors with minimal government regulation [8, 64].
Bureaucratic inefficiencies significantly hinder the expansion and sustainability of Kenya's fish feed company by delaying the launch of major projects intended to enhance feed production and distribution networks. Emam et al. [65] noted that the expansion of Kenya's aquaculture sector faces significant challenges due to cumbersome regulatory requirements, including multi- layered permits, environmental impact assessments, and mandatory public consultations. These procedural bottlenecks, compounded by rigid regulatory frameworks, create delays in implementing critical interventions such as establishing local feed manufacturing facilities or rolling out input subsidy programs for small- scale farmers [66, 67]. Typically sourced from their target users, resources elevate production costs and reduce public trust in government initiatives [68]. This reduces both the availability and cost of fish feed while diminishing dependence on costly imported feed ingredients, thus discouraging the pursuit of locally sustainable feed alternatives. Addressing these challenges necessitates streamlining approval processes, enhancing transparency in subsidy allocation, and ensuring equitable money utilization.
4.1.2		| Economic Factors
Kenya is a lower- middle- income country with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $120.58 billion in 2024. While the country has demonstrated resilient economic growth, with GDP growth accelerating from 4.9% in 2022 to 5.6% in 2023, it continues to grapple with systemic challenges, including persistent poverty and inequality, food insecurity, climate vulnerabilities, weak private sector investment, and external economic shocks (17). The economic landscape remains a critical driver of the performance of the fish feed sector, influencing input cost (e.g., raw material pricing, energy, and logistics), end- product demand (linked to consumer purchasing power), and export competitiveness [69]. The country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rose to 5.6% in 2023, up from 4.9% in 2022, driven by expanding services and higher household consumption. The projected further growth of GDP at 5.4% in 2024 and 5.6% in 2025 [70], and an expanding middle class with shifting dietary preferences toward high- protein meals such as fish, are fueling domestic demand for aquaculture products and consequently fish feed [71]. Rising regional demand created opportunities for feed manufacturers to scale up operations and enter wider markets [20]. Nonetheless, non- tariff barriers and differing legislative frameworks continue to block seamless regional integration, limiting full market potential [72, 73].
The growing demand for fish encourages fish feed manufacturers to expand production capacity and adopt innovations that enhance sustainability and efficiency [74]. Companies are increasingly investing in advanced feed formulation technologies and exploring alternative feed ingredients to meet the increasing demand for affordable and high- quality feeds [6, 26]. These advances help lower production costs and improve the nutritional value of feeds, thereby attracting fish farmers aiming to optimize feed conversion ratios [54, 75]. Additionally, Kenyan feed producers have emerging export potential to neighboring nations such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda, where aquaculture is growing but local feed production remains limited [76]. By adhering to international quality and sustainability standards and leveraging regional trade agreements, Kenyan producers can boost their market share and help drive regional aquaculture growth.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Despite the industrial advancements, the benefits are not evenly distributed across all farmer categories. Many smallholder producers remain constrained by the high cost of commercial feeds and limited market access [6], highlighting the need for inclusive feed strategies that address affordability and accessibility challenges. To effectively respond to both expanding market opportunities and the constraints faced by resource- limited farmers, Kenya's aquafeed sector increasingly requires a dual investment strategy that strengthens both industrial and decentralized feed systems. Industrial feed manufacturers are crucial in ensuring quality, safety, and nutrient precision, particularly through the development of floating pellets, protein concentrates, and premixes [77]. At the same time, decentralized feed approaches, including
on- farm feed mixing using locally sourced ingredients, remain essential for smallholders who operate under tight cost constraints [6, 8]. Supporting a hybrid approach, where commercial actors supply affordable, quality- controlled feed components and offer technical guidance to farmers, can bridge this divide, enabling small- scale producers to improve feed efficiency while minimizing prohibitive costs.
Access to funding is another core factor shaping the sector's growth and sustainability [5, 45]. Government programs have played a key role, providing the capital needed to scale production, adopt new technologies, and encourage sustainable practices. The Economic Stimulus Program (ESP), facilitated by the government's FFEPP from 2009 to 2013, provided smallholder farmers with subsidized fish feed, fingerlings, and pond construction, helping them enhance production [4, 78]. By 2012, 49,050 smallholder fish farmers operated 69,498 ponds across 2063 ha, illustrating how resource support can drive aquaculture growth [79].
In November 2022, the Kenyan government allocated KES 1 billion to establish the Kabonyo Fisheries and Aquaculture Service and Training Center of Excellence. This center aims to promote innovation and best practices through teaching, research, and incubation, with a focus on fish feed production. International programs like ABDP (IFAD, USD 143.3 million, 2018–2026) and KEMSFED (World Bank, KES 10 billion, 2020–2025) further support local feed production, sustainable methods, and the sector's capacity building [5]. Together, these initiatives demonstrate how national and international investments can strengthen the industry's ability to meet demand while supporting environmental and economic sustainability.
Nonetheless, challenges persist. Large firms benefit most from diverse financing opportunities, while smallholder farmers struggle to access affordable credit [80]. This limits technology adoption, slows equitable growth, and reinforces disparities within the sector [53]. Inflation and economic instability also drive up operational costs, straining producers, particularly small- scale operators [74]. Kenya's inflation rate reached 7.67% in 2023, up slightly from 2022 [81]. Price swings in key ingredients like fishmeal and soybean, exacerbated by global supply chain disruptions, add to these pressures [6, 8]. These realities underscore the need for targeted interventions to support smallscale producers and stabilize input costs, even as market opportunities expand.
4.1.3		| Socio- Cultural Factors
Socio- cultural factors play a vital role in shaping the development and sustainability of the fish feed industry in Kenya, particularly through their influence on consumer behavior, community attitudes, and labor market dynamics [69]. Demographic shifts, driven by rapid urbanization and population growth, have significantly shaped dietary trends. For example, in metropolitan and peri- urban regions, where fish consumption is common, population growth has increased demand for affordable, high- protein foods like fish [69, 82, 83]. This calls for increased production and supply of aquaculture products. Consequently, there is a growing demand for high- quality fish feed by farmers to ensure increased fish production and supply.
The growing importance of fish feed in supporting Kenya's expanding aquaculture sector is further highlighted by the recognition of fish farming as a viable livelihood option in rural areas, especially where traditional agriculture is constrained by climatic and environmental challenges [84]. Lack of capacity in terms of technical expertise, quality ingredients, and appropriate equipment has led to skepticism, constraining the growth of the fish feed sector by restricting market potential and hindering broader acceptance of feed technologies and innovations [85]. Educational programs, particularly those facilitated by governmental and developmental partners, have significantly contributed to countering these perceptions [5, 86]. These initiatives emphasize the potential of aquaculture to enhance food security, improve livelihoods, and produce healthy fish that meet safety standards. Enhanced public awareness not only fosters acceptance but also stimulates demand for aquaculture products, hence impacting feed manufacturers accordingly.
The socio- cultural elements affecting Kenya's fish feed sector will continue to be shaped by community involvement in diverse value chain activities [87, 88]. Active involvement of local populations will facilitate the successful implementation of innovative feeding techniques, particularly the incorporation of fresh feed ingredients such as insect- based or plant- based proteins. Engaging communities in innovations and research through established approaches such as citizen science fosters trust, encouraging broader adoption of sustainable feed solutions, thereby reducing resistance to new technologies [89]. Additionally, community participation promotes information exchange and collaborative innovation, significantly enhancing feed production techniques and feed consumption efficiency [90]. In the context of smallholder farmers, these efforts predominantly support the adoption of home- mixing practices using locally available ingredients, which helps improve access to affordable feeds. However, ensuring consistent high- quality feeds that meet advanced nutritional standards requires complementary investments in industrial feed production systems [8]. A hybrid approach, where commercial manufacturers supply quality- controlled concentrates or premixes and provide technical guidance, can bridge the gap between accessibility and quality.
Labor market dynamics also have a substantial influence on the sustainability and advancement of the fish feed sector. Skilled labor is critical for ensuring efficient production processes, maintaining feed quality, and integrating advanced technologies into feed formulation and manufacturing [91]. Yet, a shortage of skilled personnel, particularly in rural regions where most aquaculture operations are based, remains a significant challenge [92]. This skills gap hampers the sector's capacity to produce affordable, high- quality feeds that are vital for the growth and long- term viability of Kenya's aquaculture industry.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The public and private sector actors have initiated targeted training programs primarily aimed at feed formulation, quality control, and sustainable feed practices to address these challenges
[92–94]. These programs are crucial for cultivating a skilled workforce capable of meeting the rapidly evolving demands of the sector, as the aquaculture industry explores innovative and sustainable feed alternatives. Directly supporting the objectives of the fish feed business, engaging communities, and developing the workforce ensures greater adoption of sustainable practices, improves feed quality, and thus enhances the overall efficiency of aquafeed production in Kenya.
4.1.4		| Technological Factors
The efficiency and sustainability of Kenya's fish feed industry are heavily influenced by training and technical developments. Initiatives like FeedTech Kenya have trained over 500 farmers, which has led to a 40% increase in operational efficiency. Advancements in manufacturing technologies, feed composition, digital tools, and R&D innovations have together transformed the sector [25, 26]. Fish feed in Kenya currently has far greater digestibility and nutritional value, largely due to the extrusion and pelleting techniques [8]. Extrusion is a more advanced technology because it combines high pressure and continuous heating during the process to improve nutrient retention, palatability, and digestibility, while minimizing waste. This results in superior feed conversion ratios relative to conventional pellets [95]. By improving durability and shelf life, these techniques ensure that feed remains viable during distribution and storage [96]. Moreover, innovations in feed composition like alternative protein sources—such as diets based on algae-based and insect-based meals—are being included, thereby reducing reliance on traditional fishmeal and boosting environmental sustainability. These novel ingredients face notable constraints including high production costs, scalability issues, nutritional inconsistency, and anti- nutritional factors (e.g., chitin in insects)—so they currently act as supplements, not full replacements for traditional feed ingredients [54, 97].
Kenya's fish feed sector demonstrates notable ingenuity through collaborative R&D involving universities, research institutions, and private industry. These partnerships focus on cost- effective, sustainable feed components and the development of feed formulations tailored to local fish species, such as Nile tilapia and African catfish, to improve growth and health [97–99]. Despite these advancements, limited funding and infrastructure hinder the scalability of promising innovations, underscoring the need for greater investment in applied research [6].
Fish feed manufacturers and suppliers have increasingly adopted digital solutions to engage markets and stakeholders. Ecommerce platforms such as AquaRech allow direct connection with farmers, reducing reliance on intermediaries that drive up prices and limit access [54, 100]. These technologies enhance supply chain transparency by enabling consumers to trace the origin and production methods of the feed, hence addressing the increasing demand for sustainable aquaculture goods [101]. They also support demand forecasting, inventory control, and production planning, allowing companies to improve efficiency and minimize waste. As a result, smallholder farmers, who make up a large share of Kenya's aquaculture sector, now have improved access to quality feeds and streamlined distribution channels [6].
4.1.5		| Environmental Factors
Climate change significantly affects the fish feed industry by altering the availability of raw materials and the expansion of the sector [28–30]. Maize, soybeans, and cassava are crucial for feed composition, but their supply is highly susceptible to weather patterns and prolonged droughts [102, 103]. Disruptions in supply impact price fluctuations; consequently, financially incapacitating both fish farms and feed providers [29]. The advancement of resilient feed production technologies capable of withstanding climatic fluctuations necessitates the integration of climate- smart agricultural practices and research on raw materials less susceptible to climate change [104, 105].
Reducing the environmental impact of Kenya's fish feed business is dependent on sustainability measures [6, 26]. A significant proportion of Kenyan aquafeeds relies heavily on fishmeal and fish oil, typically sourced from overexploited wild fish stocks [8, 47]. For instance, about 70% of Rastrineobola argentea (locally known as omena) catch in Kenya is processed into poultry, livestock, and fish feed, while only 30% is used directly for human consumption [106]. Additionally, to meet domestic demand, Kenya imports approximately 2200 t of omena fishmeal from Tanzania each year [6].
In response to these pressures, producers are increasingly turning to alternative protein sources—such as black soldier fly larvae, agricultural byproducts, plant- based proteins, and algae—that offer lower environmental costs and align with global sustainability objectives. The adoption of environmentally friendly production and feeding technologies, including the use of renewable energy systems (e.g., solar and wind energy) and waste- reduction approaches like recirculating aquaculture systems, can enhance resource efficiency and reduce emissions associated with feed manufacturing and management [54, 107, 108]. These strategies not only contribute to environmental protection but also enable producers to meet the growing consumer demand for aquaculture products that are produced sustainably [109, 110].
4.1.6		| Legal Factors

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The operational, environmental, and market dynamics of Kenya's fish feed industry are shaped by legal frameworks that directly affect its ability to meet sustainability and quality standards. Under the direction of KEBS, the Kenya Fisheries Service enforces the Fisheries Management and Development Act (Cap. 378) of 2016, which specifies standards for aquaculture practices, including fish feed production, and thus captures the primary legal framework governing fish feed production. The Fisheries Management and Development (Safety and Quality) Regulations, 2024 further regulate import and export requirements as well as the safety and quality of fish feeds supplied in Kenya. These laws address critical issues such as feed ingredient standards, permissible additives, compounded feed quality for species like tilapia and catfish, and guidelines for new feed
sources, including dried insect products [33–35]. Additionally, import taxes on feed ingredients and environmental regulations related to feed production reflect the government's effort to balance market competitiveness with sustainability objectives.
Fish feed manufacturers are required to comply with strict standards on good manufacturing practices, nutritional composition, and ingredient approval as part of their licensing conditions. These efforts ensure that feeds are free of dangerous contaminants such as mycotoxins and heavy metals, and are safe for consumers and also protect fish health [36]. Quality assurance frameworks, supported by regular inspections and certification processes, help build trust among fish producers and end users. They also align Kenya's aquafeed products with international standards, enhancing the country's potential to tap into export markets [8]. The compounded feed specifications for tilapia and catfish set by KEBS [33, 34] serve as essential benchmarks for local manufacturers striving to formulate competitive and environmentally sustainable diets.
However, the enforcement of these regulations faces significant challenges. Weak institutional capacity, limited resources for monitoring, and inadequate regulatory competencies often result in inconsistent enforcement, allowing informal or unregistered feed producers to bypass quality standards [44]. This undermines feed quality and distorts the market, as substandard feeds compromise fish health and reduce aquaculture productivity. Strengthening institutional capacity, increasing funding for regulatory agencies, and supporting feed manufacturers through training initiatives are essential to ensure compliance and accelerate the sustainable growth of Kenya's fish feed industry beyond these enforcement gaps.
Kenya's environmental regulations aim to promote ecologically responsible practices while minimizing the environmental risks associated with fish feed production. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) requires manufacturers to adopt effective waste management systems and pollution control measures to mitigate environmental harm [111, 112]. Firms can further reduce their environmental footprint by using eco- friendly technologies and responsibly sourcing raw materials [26]. Compliance with these measures is vital not only for the sustainability of the fish feed sector but also for protecting ecosystems that support aquaculture activities [97]. Noncompliance may result in legal penalties, operational shutdowns, or reputational damage to both fish farms and feed producers [112].
The Consumer Protection Act of 2012 (No. 46 of 2012) enhances transparency and safety within the fish feed industry by mandating clear labeling and traceability [113]. Regulations require that feed packaging includes detailed information about ingredients, nutritional content, and safety precautions to enable fish farmers to make informed choices. Traceability systems, under these guidelines, help both consumers and regulatory bodies monitor production processes and identify the origin of feed ingredients [6, 114]. Such mechanisms are essential for promoting ethical and sustainable practices and for addressing feed contamination concerns [114, 115]. However, while these manufacturing and traceability measures play an essential role in ensuring feed safety, transparency, and accountability, they do not, on their own, guarantee that feed formulations meet the specific nutritional requirements of target fish species. Nutritional adequacy ultimately depends on ingredient selection and ratios, processing quality, and species- and life stage- specific diet formulations. Adopting traceability in Kenyan fish feed production is difficult, especially for small- scale producers. Nevertheless, ongoing capacity building initiatives and the introduction of digital tools—such as blockchain—can facilitate wider adoption of traceability systems, thereby strengthening both food safety and consumer protection mechanisms [6].
Kenyan fish feed manufacturers are also under pressure from global market forces to meet international standards. Guidelines from bodies such as IFIF, FAO, and ISO promote best practices in responsible raw material sourcing and the use of environmentally sustainable technologies. These standards, including the FAO's animal production and health manuals and the ISO 22000 feed standard, provide a framework that enables Kenyan producers to compete in international markets by meeting consumer demands for sustainability credentials and import requirements. However, smaller producers often struggle with the high costs of certification and limited technical capacity [8].
Table 2 compiles the key findings of the political, economic, socio- cultural, technological, environmental, and legal elements of the Kenyan fish feed sector.
4.2		| SWOT Analysis of the Fish Feed Sector
4.2.1		| Strengths
4.2.1.1		| Availability of Locally Formulated Feeds. The production of locally formulated feeds represents a key strength in Kenya's aquaculture sector, playing a crucial role in enhancing productivity and reducing costs for fish farmers [118]. Much of the aquafeed production is conducted on- farm or by small- scale, semi- commercial feed producers, utilizing locally available ingredients such as maize bran, rice bran, sunflower or cottonseed cake, cassava for binding, and fishmeal. This approach lowers costs and enhances access to feed, but it does not ensure accurate nutritional balance or meet species- specific nutrient requirements. In the absence of nutritional expertise and analytical quality control, ingredient variability and formulation errors can lead to imbalanced diets, potentially limiting growth performance compared to commercially produced, nutritionally optimized feeds.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The affordability of farm- made feeds is particularly advantageous for semi- intensive farmers, as commercial feeds containing 24%–28% crude protein are often too expensive for small- scale farmers. For instance, a mixture of 76% rice bran and 24% fishmeal or dried freshwater shrimp (Caridina nilotica) is commonly used, sometimes supplemented with fishmeal Rastrineobola argentea (omena) meal. For many farmers, these affordable local feeds remain their primary option. With considerable gains in feed efficiency and fish productivity, utilizing locally produced feeds has been reported to reduce production costs in Kenya when compared to commercial feeds [119]. However, this cost reduction is largely attributed to the significantly lower price of home- made feeds rather than superior feed efficiency. It is also
Factor	Findings	References	
Political	Kenyan government has had initiatives aimed at supporting aquaculture and fish feed production, including FFEPP and ABDP.
Kenya's relatively stable political environment has fostered investment in aquaculture and associated industries. Kenya's membership in the EAC offers opportunities for accessing regional markets and importing critical feed ingredients.
The establishment of PPPs has promoted collaborative efforts between the government, private sector, and international agencies to improve fish feed production.	[5, 6, 42, 44–46, 55]	
Economic	Economic growth (GDP growth, expanding middle class with dietary shifts) has increased demand for fish and fish feed, increasing opportunities for fish feed manufacturers.
Regional trade opportunities (Kenya's strategic position in the EAC enhances cross- border trade potential). However, non- tariff barriers and inconsistent regulatory standards hinder seamless trade within the region.
Challenges in financial access and equity (large- scale operations receive more investment, limiting smallholder farmers' access to financing, unequal distribution of resources affects smallholder adoption of sustainable feed technologies).
Kenya's inflation rate increases operational costs for fish feed manufacturers, price volatility in key inputs due to global supply chain disruptions.	[4–6, 69, 70, 78, 79]	
Socio- cultural	Growing urban populations increase demand for fish, hence demand for feeds.
Skepticism and lack of skilled labor hinder feed sector growth.
Community engagement and educational campaigns have improved awareness and adoption of new feed technologies.	[5, 69, 83, 85, 90, 91]	
Technological	Technological advances in feed formulation and production technologies such as extrusion and pelleting, are improving feed quality and sustainability.
Feed formulation advancements (e.g., alternative protein sources) reducing production costs.
Digital platforms are transforming how fish feed producers and suppliers in Kenya access markets and interact with stakeholders.	[6, 25, 26, 75, 95, 116, 117]	
Environmental	Climate change is affecting raw material supply for feeds. Alternative protein sources like BSFL are becoming more popular to mitigate environmental impacts, but climate- resilient practices and innovations are still needed.	[28–31, 85, 110]	
Legal	Legal frameworks such as the Fisheries Management Act regulate feed production, but enforcement challenges persist due to capacity and resource limitations.
Institutions such as the KEBS have established regulatory frameworks to ensure quality and safety in fish feed production.
Kenyan fish feed producers must align with global standards, including those set by the IFIF, FAO, and the ISO.
Certification standards, especially for eco- friendly practices, are important for export but are difficult for smaller producers in the country to meet.	[6, 26, 33, 34, 113, 115]	
TABLE 2 | Summary of the main political, economic, socio- cultural, technological, environmental, and legal factors influencing the fish feed sector in Kenya.
Abbreviations: ABDP = Aquaculture Business Development Programme, EAC = East African Community, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FFEPP = Fish Farming Enterprise Productivity Program, IFIF = International Feed Industry Federation, ISO = International Organization for Standardization, KEBS = Kenya Bureau of Standards, PPPs = Public- Private Partnerships.
possible that suboptimal management practices or environmental conditions in some farms limit the full productive potential of commercial feeds, masking their efficiency advantage. The use of agro- industrial byproducts like maize bran and cassava peels also contributes to waste reduction and supports a circular economy [120], aligning with sustainability goals.
This potential of locally produced feeds is seen across Africa. Adéyèmi et al. [121] conducted research in Benin, West Africa, highlighting the wide availability of native feed ingredients accessible for fish feed formulation, including cereal bran, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, cassava chips, and palm kernel cake. High nutritional value sources of proteins were
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

soybean meal, poultry viscera, and garbage fish. These ingredients reduced dependence on imported feed and supported effective aquaculture. Comparably, in Nigeria, the cost of producing 5 kg of locally produced feed was far lower (2000 naira) than the cost of imported feeds (5000 naira per 5 kg) [122], encouraging wider adoption.
Utilizing locally sourced feeds enhances innovation and advancement in micro- technologies for fish farmers. Numerous farmers have successfully utilized by- products from the poultry industry, demonstrating the adaptability of local ingredients in meeting nutritional requirements. Producers of catfish fry in Nigeria have conducted experiments using boiled chicken egg yolk as feed; prompting additional research into its efficacy [123]. Such methods show the unrealized potential of local feed formulation in advancing mass fish production across Africa [124].
Organizations such as WorldFish and KMFRI are addressing challenges related to inconsistent raw material quality and inadequate technical knowledge in Kenya [5]. Capacity- building initiatives enable these organizations to equip farmers with essential tools for enhancing their skills, including in feed formulation [5]. Further, joint research efforts are expanding the list of usable ingredients, improving feed conversion ratios (FCR), and minimizing toxins and anti- nutritional factors in feeds. These initiatives position locally formulated feeds as a cornerstone of Kenya's aquaculture productivity, bolstering economic and environmental resilience in the sector [53].
However, while home- mixed feeds are cost- effective, they often face challenges in ensuring consistent nutritional quality, safety, and feed conversion efficiency [6]. These limitations highlight the importance of a hybrid strategic approach, wherein smallscale farmers continue to mix feeds using local ingredients, but with support from industrial feed manufacturers providing protein concentrates, premixes, and technical guidance to improve feed quality. Such intermediary solutions bridge the affordability- quality gap and offer a realistic pathway toward more sustainable and inclusive feed systems.
4.2.1.2		| Improved Awareness of Feed Management Practices. Recent improvements in aquaculture productivity among Kenyan fish farmers can be attributed to increased awareness of sound feed management practices [8]. Farmers now use raised platforms and sealed containers to protect feed from moisture, pests, and microbial contamination, preserving nutritional quality and enhancing fish growth [125]. These practices maintain the nutritional quality of the feed, consequently enhancing fish growth. These storage techniques minimize feed loss and spoilage, leading to decreased production costs and enhanced profitability [126]. Farmers increasingly follow scientifically validated feeding methods tailored to the specific age, size, and species of fish [8]. For instance, Nile tilapia benefit from specific feeding schedules that minimize underfeeding or overfeeding, protecting both fish health and farmers' profits. The use of FCR monitoring allows farmers to fine- tune feeding frequency and amounts to reduce waste and improve growth performance [127]. Demand feeders, or automatic feeders, have been successfully implemented in various African nations, including the tilapia cage farming in Malawi [128].
Research institutions such as KMFRI and development organizations like WorldFish [129] provide training courses and capacity- building initiatives primarily aimed at disseminating this expanding body of knowledge. National initiatives including the Economic Stimulus Program (ESP) (2009–2013) and the ABDP (2018–2026) have offered farmers practical training in feed strategies that enhance aquaculture production [5]. Universities and colleges run short courses covering aquaculture feed management, pellet size selection, and water quality control [6]. Seasonal feeding that aligns fish metabolism with temperature variations is also emphasized. Fish farmers can share best practices, particularly through the Aquaculture Association of Kenya (AAK) [43]. Collectively, these initiatives have equipped farmers with the necessary tools and knowledge to optimize feed utilization, thereby facilitating more efficient and sustainable aquaculture practices nationwide.
4.2.1.3		| Adoption of Sustainable Practices. Fish farmers are increasingly adopting plant- and insect- based feeds, reducing dependence on fishmeal and contributing to environmental sustainability [85]. Incorporating plant ingredients such as soybean meal, sunflower seed cake, cassava, spinach, peas, carrots, and maize lowers costs and protects marine resources [126]. Maundu et al. [130] found that plant- based feeds provide adequate protein levels for species such as Nile tilapia (Oreo- chromis niloticus), resulting in growth rates comparable to those obtained with traditional diets. This shift improves local agriculture by creating a market for agricultural waste and underutilized plant components while also helping to maintain marine biodiversity. A study conducted in Ghana showed that 43% of farmers use either yellow or white maize in the formulation of feed [131]. Nigerian plant commodities such as yam, plantain, banana, cowpeas, mucuna, maize, cassava, millet, sorghum, groundnut, sun hemp seed, and brewery wastes are also being studied as potential fish feed ingredients [132]. However, some of the materials used in fish feed production, such as maize gluten, groundnut oilcake, sunflower oilcake, and soybean meal, can act as fungal growth sites, while others such as cassava leaves contain linamarin, which can be toxic to fish [126]. Therefore, care is needed in formulation.
In addition to plant- based feeds, Kenyan fish farmers have embraced the use of insect- based feeds, particularly those derived from black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae [85]. Typically, BSFL are cultivated using locally sourced organic agriculture and food by- products that would otherwise be discarded in landfills [133]. BSFL culture is considered a sustainable method for protein production in the feeding of fish and livestock, particularly chickens and pigs [134].
These larvae, rich in proteins, serve as a sustainable alternative to fishmeal, utilizing organic waste products for their growth. Mathai et al. [116] examined the potential of black soldier fly larvae as a feed ingredient. Their findings indicate that, while significantly reducing feed costs and environmental impact, the substitution of fishmeal with insect- based meal in tilapia diets resulted in comparable growth rates and feed conversion ratios. This concept addresses waste management challenges and offers a sustainable alternative for protein supply, as larvae can be cultivated on organic waste substrates [47, 135, 136].

The integration of insect- based and plant- based feeds in aquaculture technology aligns with the principles of a circular economy and resource efficiency, thereby enhancing resilience to financial and environmental challenges [137]. Utilizing locally available resources and reducing reliance on fishmeal can enable Kenyan fish producers to enhance the long- term profitability of the aquaculture industry, thereby improving the sustainability of their operations. The sustainable feeding methods demonstrate the industry's commitment to balancing production with environmental stewardship, ensuring the long- term viability of aquaculture in Kenya.
4.2.1.4		| Collaborative Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Fish farmers in Kenya have developed a culture of collaboration and knowledge exchange [92]. In the absence of adequate extension services, farmers form cooperatives or community- based organizations (CBOs) to share skills in feed formulation, quality assessment, and cost- effective feeding practices [138]. In regions where government extension agents face high workloads, peer- to- peer knowledge sharing has been effective in addressing information gaps [45]. Farmers involved in these groups demonstrate improved FCRs and enhanced fish development rates compared to those operating independently [45]. These developments illustrate that farmer- driven cooperation at the local level optimizes feed utilization and enhances productivity, thereby fostering a culture of innovation suited to local conditions.
The cooperative method significantly strengthens access to technical knowledge and resources through collective bargaining. Modern farmers benefit from platforms that enable them to advocate for improved industry conditions, supported by institutions such as the Aquacultural Association of Kenya, the Aquaculture Roundtable, and the Commercial Aquaculture Society of Kenya (CASK), as highlighted by Obwanga et al. [45]. By pooling resources, farmers reduce feed production costs through collective bulk procurement of feed ingredients. Cooperative networks promote the integration of scientifically validated innovations into farm- level production by fostering connections among farmers, feed manufacturers, and researchers [139]. Members of knowledge- sharing groups are more likely to adopt alternative protein sources, including insect- based fish feeds and other locally available ingredients, which enhance the sustainability of feed production [140]. The cooperative approach also enables the effective communication of research findings on optimal feed composition and feeding frequency, allowing farmers to apply scientific principles without the need for direct access to academic literature or laboratory facilities.
Knowledge- sharing programs further encourage community engagement and contribute to the development of resilient value chains. These coordinated efforts often lead to the creation of training centers or demonstration farms that showcase best practices in feed production and application techniques. Such platforms support farmers in adopting new technologies, including floating feeding pellets and automated feeders [46], while serving as accessible and practical learning hubs. Beyond the technical advantages, these collaborations foster trust and strengthen communication across the value chain, ensuring that farmers remain well informed about market demands and quality standards for fish feed.
4.2.2		| Weaknesses
4.2.2.1		| High Cost of Quality Fish Feed and Feed Ingredients. Small- scale fish farmers, who make up the majority of the sector, struggle to afford commercially produced quality feeds due to high costs. The scarcity and fluctuating prices of essential raw commodities such as maize, soybean, and fishmeal are primarily influenced by seasonal availability and competition from other sectors [6]. Fishmeal derived from sardines, a locally available and commonly used ingredient, is experiencing rising costs due to restricted seasonal supply and increasing demand for human consumption [26]. Facing these challenges, many farmers resort to using locally available materials and formulating on- farm feeds, often without the knowledge or tools to create nutritionally balanced diets. Poor- quality feeds that do not meet fish dietary requirements lead to slower growth rates, higher disease risks, and reduced yields, perpetuating a cycle of low productivity and limited profitability for small- scale farmers [141].
Omasaki et al. [142] reported that commercial feeds sampled in Bobasi Sub- County contained 35%–40% crude protein, while locally produced fish meals averaged significantly lower CP levels (22%–28%). This protein disparity was also reflected in their on- farm growth trials, where fish fed the lower- protein local feeds showed reduced growth performance. However, the high cost of commercial feeds often renders them unaffordable for farmers, leading to the adoption of homemade formulas that lack adequate protein and are deficient in nitrogen- free extract, consequently hindering fish growth and productivity. Omasaki et al. [142] also highlighted the dependence on waste fish as a substitute for high- quality fishmeal and the use of unskilled labor in feed formulation, which worsens the nutritional deficiencies of farm- made feeds. The high cost of quality feeds restricts production and undermines the profitability and long- term viability of small- scale fish farming in Kenya.
4.2.2.2		| Lack of Expertise in Feed Formulation. Many small- scale farmers do not possess the technological expertise required for formulating nutritionally balanced diets tailored to the specific needs of their fish [8]. This directly affects feed quality, which affects fish growth, survival, and overall production and contributes to low yields and limited profitability. While some farmers attempt to produce their own feeds using locally available resources, they often do not understand the required nutrient balance or how to select appropriate ingredients, leading to deficiencies or the inclusion of harmful antinutritional factors [26]. Plant- based protein substitutes may also lower nutrient bioavailability and increase the risk of mycotoxin contamination, further impairing digestion and growth. Small- scale farmers face challenges in optimizing feed formulations and balancing nutrient trade- offs due to limited resources and guidance [131].

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

This problem is intensified by the lack of research- driven, species- specific feeding guidelines that inform commercial and on- farm feed formulations. Many commercial feeds are formulated in laboratories using high- quality ingredients. However, these formulations often fail to account for practical farm conditions or the varying nutritional needs of fish at different life stages [64, 143]. Farmers may apply commercial grower feeds that do not match the required dietary protein
and energy ratios for their farmed species, leading to resource wastage and poor growth [6]. A communication gap between research institutes and small- scale farmers exacerbates the situation by leaving many unaware of the evolving dietary requirements of their fish throughout the production cycle [144–146].
4.2.2.3		| Lack of Awareness and Knowledge of Fish Feed Management. Fish farmers often lack knowledge about feed quality, fish nutritional requirements, or proper feed management practices [8]. For example, they frequently overlook key factors such as fish body weight, water temperature, and pond biomass when setting feeding regimes, which leads to underfeeding or overfeeding [147]. Poor record- keeping, where farmers fail to track feed use, FCRs, stocking rates, or mortalities, further compounds the problem. Without these records, farmers find it challenging to optimize feeding plans or estimate feed requirements. The lack of effective monitoring and control strategies limits their ability to implement sound management practices, which in turn affects growth and profitability [148]. This knowledge gap also strains the relationship between farmers and feed mills, as farmers wrongly blame low yields on poor feed quality rather than on inadequate management, hindering sector growth.
Another factor of poor feed management in pond culture is the improper use of fertilizers and organic manures to promote the development of natural food organisms [65]. Many times, farmers add cow dung, poultry manure, and other organic inputs without understanding their composition or following proper procedures, which can harm water quality or introduce pathogens into the system [4]. Furthermore, poor feeding practices, such as ignoring recommended feeding rates and schedules, lead to undernutrition, growth variation, fish welfare issues, along with financial losses for farmers [65].
4.2.2.4		| Low Access to Credit and Financing Options. Limited access to affordable credit restricts fish farmers' ability to invest in high- quality feeds, storage facilities, and feed production equipment [149]. Insufficient access to competitively priced financial options hinders many farmers from effectively managing their operations or enhancing feed quality, resulting in inefficiencies and decreased productivity. This often forces farmers to prioritize short- term needs over long- term planning, which disrupts feeding schedules and lowers production quality [6]. The reliance of farmers on subsidized inputs further limits entrepreneurial growth and sustainable farming practices. Rurangwa and Kabagambe [150] note that financial constraints keep farmers trapped in cycles of low income and output, restricting their potential for self- sufficiency in aquaculture.
The uneven distribution of financial resources means that many farmers make ad hoc decisions on feed purchases, which reduces feeding efficiency and disrupts fish development. Omasaki et al. [142] found that farmers in Kisii County often depend on untrained labor for feed formulation or use waste fish as a substitute for quality fishmeal because of financial limitations. This lack of money also makes it impossible for farmers to purchase the specific equipment required for efficient feed formulation; therefore, resulting in poorly mixed and nutritionally unbalanced diets that further impact fish health and production. Moreover, Quagrainie et al. [151] highlight that limited use of credit is often due to poor financial literacy and low investment in aquaculture by lending institutions. Providing targeted financing and guidance could motivate farmers to invest in the tools needed for sustainable aquaculture growth, helping break the cycle of low productivity.
4.2.3		| Opportunities
4.2.3.1		| Development of Innovative Fish Feed and Feed Ingredient Alternatives. The aquaculture sector in Kenya offers numerous opportunities for improving sustainability, lowering costs, and increasing production efficiency through innovative fish feed and feed ingredient alternatives. Microalgae, such as spirulina and chlorella, offer excellent nutritional profiles and resilience to various environmental conditions, making them highly promising [152]. Spirulina provides up to 50% crude protein by dry weight, alongside essential amino acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), vitamins, and antioxidants, making it a viable substitute for fishmeal. Research conducted by KMFRI found that spirulina can replace up to 30% of fishmeal protein in Nile tilapia diets without compromising growth performance. Smallholder farmers, who often spend more than half of their operating costs on feed, stand to benefit from this technology, which reduces feed costs while providing environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration and nutrient recycling from wastewater [117]. Spirulina farming is scalable and accessible, even for resource- constrained farmers, as it can be cultivated with low- cost inputs such as animal dung.
Chlorella is another valuable microalga that supplies vital nutrients and added benefits to aquaculture. It functions as a natural antibacterial agent, boosts fish immune responses, and enhances pigmentation [153, 154]. Unlike conventional feed additives, chlorella does not release harmful chemicals into the environment, making it an environmentally friendly option [154]. The unique properties of microalgae position them as promising feed alternatives that could help Kenyan fish farmers reduce reliance on imported ingredients while delivering cost- effective and sustainable solutions.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Seaweed also presents a compelling plant- based feed component. Although seaweeds typically contain only 0.5%–5% total lipids on a dry-weight basis, these lipids can be enriched in n- 3 PUFA—often comprising a substantial proportion (up to ~50%–70%) of the total fatty acid profile. However, given the low total lipid content, the absolute n- 3 PUFA levels remain modest compared to fish oil [155–157]. Moreover, the relevance of seaweed as an alternative omega- 3 source depends on the specific nutritional requirements of the farmed species, as species such as Nile tilapia have lower essential fatty acid demands compared to carnivorous fish like trout or salmon [158]. Furthermore, depending on the species, seaweed contains 3%–43% (percentage of dry weight) crude protein [159, 160], which is comparable to those seen in conventional plant- based protein sources such as soybeans (36%–56%) [161, 162]. Seaweed's rapid growth, high biomass yield, and carbon sequestration potential make it an appealing sustainable option [163]. Seaweed farming is gaining traction as a livelihood for coastal communities, especially in
Kenya's southern coast [164]. During 2009 and 2010, KMFRI established small- scale seaweed farms on Kenya's south coast, mainly at Kibuyuni with government funding. The Regional Coastal Management Program (ReCoMaP), numerous NGOs, CBOs, and Beach Management Units (BMUs) all participated in this effort, which aimed to improve livelihoods and promote seaweed cultivation [165]. Despite challenges like die- offs and budgetary limits, regional examples from Tanzania highlight the commercial potential of seaweed farming [163].
Several African countries are expanding seaweed cultivation, with Tanzania's red algae industry seeing significant growth, paralleling efforts in Mozambique, Madagascar, South Africa, and Kenya [166]. Green seaweed (Ulva) is already used in South Africa as an aquafeed component and could serve as a model across the continent [167]. Seaweed farming, which is usually led by women, requires little land, water, or other resources while providing numerous environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling, and coastal ecosystem restoration [168]. Rising global demand and low setup costs make seaweed farming a promising path for improving livelihoods and advancing sustainable aquaculture across Africa.
BSFL offer another promising alternative for aquaculture in Kenya. BSFL convert agricultural and food waste into high- quality protein, addressing both waste management and feed cost concerns [169]. Studies show BSFL can replace fishmeal without compromising feed conversion efficiency or growth performance, reducing pressure on marine resources [170, 171]. In Kiambu County, Kenya, BSFL production has helped manage organic waste and created jobs in waste processing and feed production [172]. When embedded within village- or cooperativelevel hubs, this flexibility enables pooled infrastructure (e.g., breeding bins, drying facilities) and consistent feedstock aggregation. Furthermore, BSFL's versatility with various organic waste streams supports scalable circular economy models that align with sustainability goals and reduce aquaculture's environmental footprint [116].
Biofloc single- cell microbial fish feeds and periphyton provide further opportunities for improving aquaculture sustainability in Kenya. Biofloc, which is made up of algae and beneficial bacteria, converts nitrogenous waste into high- protein microbial biomass, reducing reliance on costly commercial feed and improving water quality [173]. Periphyton, a biofilm made up of algae, bacteria, and other microorganisms, grows on submerged surfaces, giving direct food to fish while improving nitrogen cycling and encouraging phytoplankton growth [174]. According to research, biofloc and periphyton improve feed conversion efficiency, fish survival rates, and overall productivity, making them useful for smallholder farmers in Kenya who face feed affordability challenges [174, 175].
4.2.3.2		| Expansion of Research and Development in Aquafeed Formulation. Investing in research and development in aquafeed composition has the potential to address Kenya's persistent challenges on feed cost, quality, and availability in aquaculture. Small- scale farmers, the backbone of the sector, face significant constraints due to dependence on imported fishmeal and traditional ingredients [6, 65]. R&D drives solutions by creating balanced, species- specific, affordable feeds suited to local conditions. Alternative proteins such as microalgae, BSFL, and agricultural byproducts have already shown tremendous potential in terms of cutting feed costs while maintaining nutritional value [169, 176]. A detailed study conducted by KMFRI on the Nile tilapia diets indicated that spirulina, a microalga, could replace up to 30% of fishmeal protein without impairing growth performance. This highlights the potential of local resources to meet the dietary needs of farmed fish while reducing reliance on expensive imports.
4.2.3.3		| Establishment of Public- Private Partnerships (PPPs). Partnerships between research institutions, colleges, and commercial companies can drive feed innovation [177]. As Murekezi et al. [178] highlight, collaboration between government, research institutions, businesses, and farmer cooperatives promotes sustainable feed sector development. Government agencies provide technical support, while the private sector contributes expertise, funding, and market connections. Such partnerships can help smallholders access modern technologies that reduce fishmeal use and boost sustainability [178]. A model example is FoodTechAfrica, a PPP involving Dutch and East African enterprises focused on developing an integrated aquaculture value chain in the region. Collaboration between Dutch agrifood companies, research institutions, and government agencies with their East African counterparts delivers locally tailored and environmentally sustainable solutions. Initiated in Kenya in 2013, FoodTechAfrica has expanded to Rwanda, Uganda, and Tanzania, promoting sustainable aquaculture through innovative approaches such as premium feed production and recirculating aquaculture systems [76].
4.2.3.4		| Adoption of Technology in Feed Production and Management. Modern technologies, including digital platforms, automated feeders, and precision feeding systems, can improve feed use, cut waste, and significantly boost profitability. Precision aquaculture solutions utilizing AI- driven systems enable farmers to deliver the correct feed at optimal times, thereby minimizing nutrient loss and environmental impact [179]. Automated feeding systems use sensors and control units to monitor fish behavior and adjust feeding schedules, thereby optimizing FCR and reducing labor costs [6]. These advancements streamline feeding practices and address challenges such as underfeeding, which inhibits fish growth, and overfeeding, which can negatively impact water quality. Better feed processing techniques such as extrusion and pelleting boost digestibility and shelf life [6].

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

A notable example of technological advancement in aquaculture is automated feeding systems in Indonesian catfish farming [180]. This system, operated by a Real-Time Clock (RTC) and a microcontroller interfaced with sensors through Internet of Things (IoT) technology, schedules feeding at appropriate intervals based on the active hours of catfish, thereby minimizing the risks of underfeeding (which may lead to cannibalism) and overfeeding, which can result in water pollution and diseases. The system utilizes ultrasonic sensors to measure feed levels in storage containers and enables remote control and monitoring via an online program. This approach has been shown to ensure accurate and timely feeding while addressing problems related to uneaten feed and ammonia buildup, thereby enhancing efficiency and fish health.

The autonomous fish feeder, designed to identify uneaten food, represents a technological advancement in aquafeed management [181]. Numerous Kenyan farmers face challenges with traditional feeding methods that depend on manual labor and often lead to inefficient feed utilization. Therefore, such devices may represent a significant advancement. Such technologies enable farmers to make data- driven decisions, allowing for adjustments in feeding strategies based on the nutritional requirements of fish at various developmental stages [182]. These advancements enhance water quality management by decreasing waste, thereby reducing the likelihood of disease outbreaks and fostering sustainability.
4.2.4		| Threats
4.2.4.1		| Climate Change. Kenya's heavy reliance on rain- fed agriculture for 98% of its crops makes the country highly vulnerable to irregular rainfall patterns, rising temperatures, and extreme weather events such as floods and droughts [183]. These climate changes have reduced agricultural productivity, particularly among smallholder farmers who are crucial to the sector, thereby exacerbating poverty and food insecurity. Essential feed components of fish diets, such as soybeans and maize, are highly sensitive to climate stress. For example, maize yields drop sharply when temperatures exceed 35°C [184], a condition increasingly common in Kenya's lowlands. This intensifies competition for these inputs in aquaculture, driving up costs and threatening the sector's sustainability [5, 185].
Climate change also raises the risk of feed contamination, endangering both fish health and productivity. Increased temperatures and prolonged droughts create conditions that favor aflatoxin- producing fungi [186]. Feed ingredients such as maize, groundnut meal, and cottonseed meal are especially prone to contamination during improper storage in hot and humid environments (above 62% humidity) [187]. Limited infrastructure often forces fish farmers into poor storage practices, worsening the problem [6]. Mycotoxin contamination compromises fish health, reduces feed nutritional quality, and lowers survival and growth rates. It is impossible to achieve sustainability in aquaculture production without addressing climate change effects. Mitigating climate change impacts could secure a promising future for the aquaculture feed industry through sustainable production, contributing to higher economic value of aquaculture products.
4.2.4.2		| Volatility From Dependence on Imported Technologies and Inputs. The fish feed sector in Kenya is heavily dependent on imported technologies, raw materials, and processing equipment, which exposes it to external shocks and raises production costs [6]. Import taxes and high transportation costs add to these vulnerabilities. Without localized technology and inputs, the sector struggles to develop feed solutions tailored to Kenya's specific economic and environmental context [44]. This dependence leaves smallholder farmers, who dominate the aquaculture sector, with feeds that are either too costly or ill- suited to their needs.
Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates make up most of the cost of fish feeds [188]. Kenya imports critical feed components, including maize, wheat by- products, rice bran, soybean meal, sunflower seed cake, fishmeal, and micro- ingredients such as vitamins, minerals, and preservatives [8]. External shocks, including the COVID- 19 pandemic, markedly disrupted the supply of these raw materials. Transportation costs increased by 20%– 60%; labor availability decreased, and additional operating costs to comply with health guidelines compelled feed manufacturers to significantly raise prices [189]. Small- scale farmers have borne the brunt of these increases, struggling to access quality feeds.
Recent geopolitical crises, such as the Ukraine war, have further exacerbated the situation. Ukraine and Russia are among the world's largest exporters of key agricultural commodities, including wheat and maize. The conflict caused wheat prices to surge by 150% at their peak, pushing fish feed prices up by 30%–40% [188, 190]. Even as some prices stabilize, farmers continue to face high costs passed along the supply chain. Unless Kenya invests in local feed production technologies and raw material sourcing, its aquafeed industry will remain vulnerable to external shocks.
4.2.4.3		| Competition for Raw Materials With Other Sectors. Kenya's fish feed sector competes for raw materials with livestock feed, human food, biofuel, and pet food industries, which drives up input costs [191]. Animal feed industries, which consume over 700 million tons of feed annually, often secure better prices and supplies [192]. This forces small- scale Kenyan fish farmers either to pay more or use lower- quality substitutes, both of which reduce profitability [191].
Maize and soybean, essential components in fish feed formulations, are also fundamental in the production of chicken and pig feed [193]. Livestock producers, supported by stronger supply chains and increased purchasing power, often secure these at more favorable terms. Small- scale fish producers face higher pricing and inconsistent supply relative to their livestock producers [26]. The pet food sector intensifies competition, as it pays premium prices for high- grade ingredients like low- ash fishmeal [192]. This demand further distorts market dynamics, pushing aquafeed producers and, consequently, fish farmers out of competition for essential raw materials.
The biofuel sector worsens the situation by diverting large quantities of agricultural products such as soybean and maize for fuel production. Government subsidies and incentives have prioritized the use of these crops for ethanol and biodiesel, reducing their availability for feed and driving up their prices [194]. This trend hurts Kenyan fish farmers, who depend on a steady and affordable supply of these inputs to keep their operations running. In a country where aquaculture already struggles with high input costs, diverting agricultural resources to biodiesel and ethanol production adds further strain [195]. The reliance on soybean oil and maize for biodiesel and ethanol threatens the economic sustainability of fish farming by increasing feed costs and disrupting supply chains.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Human food consumption adds another layer of direct and ethically complex competition [196]. Sardines, a key component in fishmeal production, are consumed directly as an affordable protein source by disadvantaged groups in Kenya [197]. Similarly, maize and soybean, both central to aquafeed, are staple foods for

	Findings	References	
Strengths	Locally formulated feeds are affordable and	[5, 6, 85, 118–120, 126, 133]
tailored to fish species' needs.
Improved awareness of feed management has led
to better practices and reduced waste.
Increased adoption of sustainable feed practices (plant- and insect- based).	
Weaknesses	High cost of quality feed ingredients, affected by market	[6, 26, 65, 131, 141, 142, 149]
fluctuations and competition from other sectors.
Lack of expertise in feed formulation leads to poor feed quality.
Limited knowledge of feed management and poor access to credit.	
Opportunities	Development of innovative feed alternatives, such as spirulina,	[76, 116, 117, 153–155, 164, 177]
chlorella, seaweed, and black soldier fly larvae (BSFL).
Expansion of research in aquafeed formulation.
Public- private partnerships (PPPs) to promote feed innovations.	
Threats	Climate change affecting raw material supply	[183, 184, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196, 197]
and quality, leading to volatility.
Dependency on imported technologies and raw materials
increases vulnerability to external disruptions.
Competition for raw materials with other industries
such as livestock, biofuels, and human food.	

TABLE 3 | Summary of the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats within the fish feed sector in Kenya.

many Kenyans [6]. This dual demand creates tension between supporting aquaculture and enhancing food security. Smallscale fish farmers, already burdened by financial challenges, face high feed costs and limited access to quality ingredients. Consequently, they are forced to use inferior substitutes that harm fish health and growth, ultimately threatening their livelihoods and their ability to meet Kenya's growing demand for affordable seafood.
Table 3 lists the main findings on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Kenyan fish feed industry.
5		| Conclusion
This paper uses an integrated PESTEL- SWOT analysis to demonstrate the complex interplay of internal and external factors shaping Kenya's fish feed industry. This integrated approach offers a robust foundation for identifying opportunities to strengthen the fish feed sub- sector in Kenya through improved policy, market development, technology adoption, and enhanced climate resilience. While the industry has experienced significant growth due to government and donor- supported initiatives and increasing national fish consumption, persistent challenges such as climate vulnerabilities, reliance on imported feed inputs, and financial barriers threaten its long- term sustainability. Conversely, Kenya's political stability and economic growth trends present untapped opportunities for transformative investments and expansion. The sector's future hinges on its ability to convert latent potential, such as underutilized local raw materials and regional trade opportunities into tangible, competitive advantages. Nevertheless, limited financial access, elevated operational expenses, and a shortage of qualified personnel constitute significant obstacles to sustainable growth.
To achieve long- term sustainability, this will require coordinated actions in three main areas. First, research priorities should focus on developing affordable, scalable feed innovations tailored to smallholders, from insect-based proteins to valorization of agricultural products. Second, policy reforms are necessary to dismantle barriers, either through harmonization of regional feed standards to ease cross- border trade and streamlining of regulatory frameworks to facilitate production scaling and increase investment in local feed production and cold chain infrastructure to reduce dependence on imports. Third, donors and regional collaborators should channel resources into public- private partnerships that promote technology transfer, capacity building, and circular economy approaches, with particular emphasis on alternative proteins such as insect- and microalgae- based feeds. Finally, optimizing these strategic interventions will enhance feed sector resilience and contribute to regional food security, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.
Author Contributions
Esther Magondu: conceptualization, validation, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Lucy Njogu: conceptualization, validation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Jimmy B. Mboya, Mavindu Muthoka, and Kevin Ouko: conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Rodrigue Yossa, Mary A. Opiyo, Jonathan Munguti, and Menaga Meenakshisundaram: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Chrysantus M. Tanga and Kevin Obiero: supervision, writing – review and editing.
Acknowledgments

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Asia–Africa BlueTech Superhighway (AABS) Project, which facilitated the publication of this article.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
1.		D. Klaoudatos, T. Karagyaurova, T. G. Pitropakis, et al., “Factors Influencing Endangered Marine Species in the Mediterranean Sea: An Analysis Based on IUCN Red List Criteria Using Statistical and Soft Computing Methodologies,” Environments 11, no. 7 (2024): 151, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ envir onmen ts110 70151 .
2.		Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024. Blue Transformation in Action (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2024), https://doi. org/ 10. 4060/cd0683en.
3.		Kenya Fisheries Service, “Kenya Fisheries Statistical Bulletin, 2023,” Kenya Fisheries Service Report, 2024, https:// kefs. go. ke/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2024- 09/ FISHE RIES% 20ANN UAL% 20STA TISTI CS% 202023_. pdf.
4.		M. A. Opiyo, E. Marijani, P. Muendo, R. Odede, W. Leschen, and H. Charo- Karisa, “A Review of Aquaculture Production and Health Management Practices of Farmed Fish in Kenya,” International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine 6, no. 2 (2018): 141–148, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijvsm. 2018. 07. 001.
5.		J. M. Munguti, K. O. Obiero, J. O. Iteba, et al., “Role of Multilateral Development Organizations, Public and Private Investments in Aquaculture Subsector in Kenya,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7 (2023): 1208918, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/fsufs. 2023. 1208918.
6.		J. Munguti, M. Muthoka, M. Chepkirui, et al., “The Fish Feed Sector in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda: Current Status, Challenges, and Strategies for Improvement—A Comprehensive Review,” Aquaculture Nutrition 2024, no. 1 (2024): 8484451, https://doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 2024/ 8484451.
7.		S. Musa, C. M. Aura, T. Tomasson, Ó. Sigurgeirsson, G. K. Kubiriza, and H. Thorarensen, “The Influence of Various Feeding and Pond Fertilization Strategies on Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) Production and the Selectivity for Natural Versus Supplementary Diet in Semi- Intensive Aquaculture Systems,” Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries 5, no. 1 (2025): e70031, https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ aff2. 70031 .
8.		J. Munguti, H. Odame, J. Kirimi, K. Obiero, E. Ogello, and D. Liti, “Fish Feeds and Feed Management Practices in the Kenyan Aquaculture Sector: Challenges and Opportunities,” Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 24, no. 1 (2021): 82–89, https://doi. org/ 10. 14321/ aehm. 024. 01. 12.
9.		N. Kansongue, J. Njuguna, and S. Vertigans, “A PESTEL and SWOT Impact Analysis on Renewable Energy Development in Togo,” Frontiers in Sustainability 3 (2023): 990173, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/frsus. 2022. 990173.
10.		I. Yüksel, “Developing a Multi- Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis,” International Journal of Business and Management 7, no. 24 (2012): 52, https://doi. org/ 10. 5539/ ijbm.v7n24p52.
11.		Z. B. Yusop, “PESTEL Analysis,” in Paper Presented at COMRAP, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (ICEBHAS, 2018), 34–39.
12.		D. Leigh, “SWOT Analysis,” in Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, vol. 1- 3 (Wiley, 2009), 115–140, https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 9780470592 663. ch24.
13.		E. Gürel and M. Tat, “SWOT Analysis: A Theoretical Review,” Journal of International Social Research 10, no. 51 (2017): 994–1006, https://doi. org/ 10. 17719/ jisr. 2017. 1832.
14.		D. Penchev, “SWOT Analysis as a Research Method in Pedagogy,” Pedagogika 93, no. 5 (2021): 669–678.
15.		C. R. Engle and J. van Senten, “Resilience of Communities and Sustainable Aquaculture: Governance and Regulatory Effects,” Fishes 7, no. 5 (2022): 268, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ fishe s7050268.
16.		C. M. Jolly, B. Nyandat, Z. Yang, et al., “Dynamics of Aquaculture Governance,” Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 54, no. 2 (2023): 427–481, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/jwas. 12967.
17.		S. Ochieng, E. Ogello, K. Obiero, and M. Cheserek, “Determinants of Households' Resilience to Covariate Shocks: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications From the Kenyan Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors,” Aquaculture Journal 4, no. 3 (2024): 203–216, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ aquacj4030015.
18.		T. Bjørndal and A. Tusvik, Economic Analysis of the Contrinutions of Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture to Future Food Security (Centre for Applied Research at NHH, 2020).
19.		C. Engle, Aquaculture Businesses: A Practical Guide to Economics and Marketing (CABI, 2020), https://doi. org/ 10. 1079/ 97818 00628 977. 0005.
20.		G. Kumar, C. Engle, and C. Tucker, “Factors Driving Aquaculture Technology Adoption,” Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 49, no. 3 (2018): 447–476, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/jwas. 12514 .
21.		C. Brugere, K. P. Padmakumar, W. Leschen, and D. R. Tocher, “What Influences the Intention to Adopt Aquaculture Innovations? Concepts and Empirical Assessment of Fish Farmers' Perceptions and Beliefs About Aquafeed Containing Non- Conventional Ingredients,” Aquaculture Economics and Management 25, no. 3 (2021): 339–366, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13657 305. 2020. 1840661.
22.		M. Budhathoki, S. Tunca, R. L. Martinez, et al., “Societal Perceptions of Aquaculture: Combining Scoping Review and Media Analysis,” Reviews in Aquaculture 16, no. 4 (2024): 1879–1900, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/raq. 12927 .
23.		R. Adam and L. Njogu, “A Review of Gender Inequality and Women's Empowerment in Aquaculture Using the Reach- Benefit- Empower- Transform Framework Approach: A Case Study of Nigeria,” Frontiers in Aquaculture 1 (2023): 1052097, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/faquc. 2022. 1052097.
24.		R. Mendes, P. Rema, J. Dias, et al., “Socially Acceptable Feed Formulations May Impact the Voluntary Feed Intake and Growth, but Not Robustness of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus),” Fishes 9, no. 9 (2024): 361, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ fishe s9090361.
25.		A. Amankwah, K. K. Quagrainie, and P. V. Preckel, “Impact of Aquaculture Feed Technology on Fish Income and Poverty in Kenya,” Aquaculture Economics and Management 22, no. 4 (2018): 410–430, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13657 305. 2017. 1413689.
26.		M. Daniel, O. Argwings, J. O. Omweno, N. O. Outa, and J. M. Munguti, “Current Fish Feed Status and Development of New Feeding Technologies for Aquaculture Growth and Development in Kenya: Rapid Review,” Journal of Aquaculture & Fisheries 7, no. 61 (2023): 2, https://doi. org/ 10. 24966/ AAF- 5523/ 100061.
27.		G. P. Binay and N. A. Villenas, “The Development of the Aquatic Product System Using Agile Model: An E- Commerce Application,” Scientific Journal of Engineering, and Technology 1, no. 1 (2024): 1–7, https://doi. org/ 10. 69739/ sjet.v1i1. 25.
28.		L. R. D'Abramo, “Sustainable Aquafeed and Aquaculture Production Systems as Impacted by Challenges of Global Food Security and Climate Change,” Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 52, no. 6 (2021): 1162–1167, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/jwas. 12867 .
29.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

H. P. Makkar, “Feed Demand Landscape and Implications of Food- Not Feed Strategy for Food Security and Climate Change,” Animal 12, no. 8 (2018): 1744–1754, https://doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 700324X.

30.		S. Maulu, O. J. Hasimuna, M. Chibesa, et al., “Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Aquaculture Production in Zambia: Status, Vulnerability Factors, and Adaptation Strategies,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 8 (2024): 1348984, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2024. 1348984.
31.		S. Maulu, O. J. Hasimuna, L. H. Haambiya, et al., “Climate Change Effects on Aquaculture Production: Sustainability Implications, Mitigation, and Adaptations,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5 (2021): 609097, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2021. 609097.
32.		H. E. Froehlich, R. R. Gentry, and B. S. Halpern, “Conservation Aquaculture: Shifting the Narrative and Paradigm of Aquaculture's Role in Resource Management,” Biological Conservation 215 (2017): 162–168, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. 2017. 09. 012.
33.		Kenyan Bureau of Standards, Compounded Catfish Feeds: Specification. Kenya Standards. KS-2451- 1:2012, vol. 9 (Kenyan Bureau of Standards, 2012).
34.		Kenyan Bureau of Standards, Compounded Tilapia Feeds: Specification. Kenya Standards. KS-2289- 1:2016, vol. 9 (Kenyan Bureau of Standards, 2016).
35.		Kenyan Bureau of Standards, Dried Insect Products for Compounding Animal Feeds Specification. KS2711:2017 (Kenyan Bureau of Standards, 2017).
36.		B. Tangendjaja, “Quality Control of Feed Ingredients for Aquaculture,” in Feed and Feeding Practices in Aquaculture (Woodhead Publishing, 2022), 165–194, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978- 0- 12- 82159 82. 00014 - X.
37.		H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, no. 1 (2005): 19–32, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13645 57032 00011 9616.
38.		D. Levac, H. Colquhoun, and K. K. O'Brien, “Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology,” Implementation Science 5 (2010): 1–9, https://doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1748- 5908- 5- 69.
39.		G. M. Tawfik, K. A. Dila, M. Y. Mohamed, et al., “A Step by Step Guide for Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis With Simulation Data,” Tropical Medicine and Health 47 (2019): 1–9, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4118 2- 019- 0165- 6.
40.		J. Zhu and W. Liu, “A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers,” Scientometrics 123, no. 1 (2020): 321–335, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1119 2- 020- 03387 - 8.
41.		A. Kumar, “Comparing Scientific Productivity Using Scopus and Web of Science (WoS): A Case of Indian R&D Laboratories,” Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 29, no. 3 (2021): 414–426, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19761 597. 2020. 1816837.
42.		A. J. Rothuis, A. P. van Duijn, J. C. Rijsingen, W. van der Pijl, and E. Rurangwa, Business Opportunities for Aquaculture in Kenya: With Special Reference to Food Security (LEI, 2011).
43.		Y. W. Fosso, “Development of Commercial Aquaculture and the Role of Policies. A Case Study on the Development of Aquaculture as a Tool for Poverty Reduction and Food Security in Kenya” (master's thesis, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 2015).
44.		B. Obwanga, M. R. Lewo, B. C. Bolman, and P. G. van der Heijden, From Aid to Responsible Trade: Driving Competitive Aquaculture Sector Development in Kenya: Quick Scan of Robustness, Reliability and Resilience of the Aquaculture Sector (Wageningen University & Research, 2017), https://doi. org/ 10. 18174/ 421667.
45.		B. Obwanga, K. Soma, O. I. Ayuya, et al., Exploring Enabling Factors for Commercializing the Aquaculture Sector in Kenya (Centre for Development Innovation, 2020).
46.		C. N. Gichuki, S. W. Ndiritu, and A. B. Emodoi, “Impact of Common Interest Group Participation and Aquaculture Development Programs on Fish Productivity and Net Returns: Evidence From Nile Tilapia Farming,” Aquaculture International 33, no. 1 (2025): 1–20, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1049 9- 024- 01707 - w.
47.		M. A. Opiyo, R. N. Nairuti, C. C. Ngugi, and G. M. Holeh, “Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae Meal as a Sustainable Protein Source for Fish Feed Production in Kenya,” in Emerging Sustainable Aquaculture Innovations in Africa (Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), 89–101, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 981- 19- 7451- 9_ 3.
48.		Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, National Fisheries Policy, 2020 (Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2020), https:// repos itory. kippra. or. ke/ bitst ream/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 4115/ NATIO NAL% 20FIS HERIES% 20POL ICY% 2c% 202020. pdf? seque nce= 1& isAll owed= y.
49.		J. M. Munguti, J. G. Kirimi, K. Obiero, et al., “Critical Aspects of Aquafeed Value Chain in the Kenyan Aquaculture Sector—A Review,” Sustainable Agriculture Research 10 (2021): 87–97.
50.		Ministry of Fisheries Development, “Draft National Aquaculture Strategy and and Development Plan,” 2010, http://www. kilimo. go. ke/ fishe ries/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2015/ 05/ Natio nal- Aquac ultur e- Strat egy- Plan. pdf.
51.		C. C. Ngugi and J. O. Manyala, Assessment of National Aquaculture Policies and Programmes in Kenya (Sustainable Aquaculture Research Networks in Sub- Saharan Africa (SARNISSA), 2009).
52.		R. Muriuki, “Governance and Food Security in Eastern Africa Region; a Case Study of the Fisheries Sector in Kenya” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2021).
53.		K. O. Obiero, H. Waidbacher, B. O. Nyawanda, J. M. Munguti, J. O. Manyala, and B. Kaunda-Arara, “Predicting Uptake of Aquaculture Technologies Among Smallholder Fish Farmers in Kenya,” Aquaculture International 27 (2019): 1689–1707, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1049 9- 01900423 - 0.
54.		K. Obiero, E. Ogello, J. Munguti, et al., “Profiling and Prioritizing Climate- Smart Aquaculture Technologies, Innovations, and Management Practices in Kenya,” Aquaculture Research 2024, no. 1 (2024): 8843677, https://doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 2024/ 8843677.
55.		Climate Champions, “Black Soldier Flies: Affordable and Sustainable Solution for Fertilisers in Kenya,” 2024, https://clima techampions. unf- ccc. int/ black- soldi er- flies - affor dable - and- susta inabl e- solut ion- for- ferti liser s- in- kenya/ #: ~: text= The% 20project% 2C% 20a% 20par tners hip% 20between,women% 20involved% 20in% 20feed% 20pro duction.
56.		Farm Africa, “Integrating Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) Production Into Aquaculture,” 2024, https://www. farma frica. org/ story/ integ ratin g- black - soldi er- fly- larva e- produ ction - into- quacu lture/ .
57.		C. M. Tanga, J. P. Egonyu, D. Beesigamukama, et al., “Edible Insect Farming as an Emerging and Profitable Enterprise in East Africa,” Current Opinion in Insect Science 48 (2021): 64–71, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cois. 2021. 09. 007.
58.		B. Nyandat, Analysis of Feeds and Fertilizers for Sustainable Aquaculture Development in Kenya, vol. 497 (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 2007), 423.
59.		P. Majluf, K. Matthews, D. Pauly, D. J. Skerritt, and M. L. Palomares, “A Review of the Global Use of Fishmeal and Fish Oil and the Fish in: Fish out Metric,” Science Advances 10, no. 42 (2024): eadn5650, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/sciadv. adn5650.
60.		FoodTechAfrica, “The Public- Private Partnership in AquaCulture,” 2014, https:// foodt echafrica. com/about- us/.
61.		T. B. Wanjugu, “The Effect of East Africa Community Trade Block on Economic Growth in Kenya” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2019).
62.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

W. T. Baya, “Effects of Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers on Intra- East Africa Community Trade in Agricultural Food Commodities” (masters thesis, Egerton University, Kenya, 2019), https://ageco nsear ch. umn. edu/ record/ 302092/ files/ Walla ce% 20Thoya% 20The sis% 20. pdf.

63.		M. M. Kijogi, “The Effect of Non-Tariff Barriers on Trade in the East Africa Community,” 2021, https:// ikesra. kra. go. ke/ bitstream/ han- dle/ 12345 6789/ 1425/ The% 20effect% 20of% 20non - tarri ff% 20bar riers% 20on% 20tra de% 20in% 20the% 20East% 20Afr ica. pdf? seque nce= 1.
64.		J. M. Munguti, S. Musa, P. S. Orina, et al., “An Overview of Current Status of Kenyan Fish Feed Industry and Feed Management Practices, Challenges and Opportunities,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 1, no. 6 (2014): 128–137.
65.		W. Emam, C. Zantioti, J. Prah, V. Monckton, S. Craig, and H. S. Lambert, “A Review of Kenyan Inland Aquaculture With an Eye to the Status of Animal Welfare in the Sector,” Discover Agriculture 2, no. 1 (2024): 70, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4427 9- 024- 00092 - 5.
66.		D. N. Chenyi, “Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Performance of Aquaculture Projects in Kenya” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2023), https://erepo sitory. uonbi. ac. ke/ bitst ream/ handle/ 11295/ 166438/ Chenyi_ Monit oring% 20and% 20Eva luati on% 20Pra ctices% 20and% 20Per forma nce% 20of% 20Aqu acult ure% 20Pro jects% 20in% 20Kenya. pdf? seque nce= 1.
67.		A. Menezes, C. Ligeon, P. Murekezi, and C. M. Jolly, Diagnosis of Aquaculture Employment Governance in Selected African Countries, vol. 715 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 2024), I–70.
68.		S. M. Kioi, “Factors Influencing Implementation of Economic Stimulus Projects in Kenya: A Case of Fish Farming Projects in Kajiado North District” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2014), http://erepo sitory. uonbi. ac. ke/ bitst ream/ handle/ 11295/ 95410/ Kioi_ Facto rs% 20Inf luenc ing% 20Imp lemen tation% 20Of% 20Eco nomic% 20Sti mulus% 20Pro jects% 20In% 20Ken ya% 20A% 20Case% 20Of% 20Fish% 20Far ming% 20Projects% 20In% 20Kaj iado% 20Nor th% 20Dis trict. pdf? seque nce= 1.
69.		O. I. Ayuya, K. Soma, and B. Obwanga, “Socio- Economic Drivers of Fish Species Consumption Preferences in Kenya's Urban Informal Food System,” Sustainability 13, no. 9 (2021): 5278, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su130 95278 .
70.		World Bank Group, “Macro Poverty Outlook for Kenya: October 2024,” 2024, https://docum ents.worldbank. org/en/ publi cation/docum ents- repor ts/ docum entde tail/ 09972 25101 42429 034/ idu19 669ef d5136 00145 9a18d 0f1d6 8788d a0f1e .
71.		L. Cornelsen, P. Alarcon, B. Häsler, et al., “Cross- Sectional Study of Drivers of Animal- Source Food Consumption in Low- Income Urban Areas of Nairobi, Kenya,” BMC Nutrition 2 (2016): 1–3, https://doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4079 5- 016- 0109- z.
72.		J. Mwangi, “The Influence of East African Integration on Kenya's Sustainable Development and Economic Growth” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2021).
73.		F. Lwesya, “Integration Into Regional or Global Value Chains and Economic Upgrading Prospects: An Analysis of the East African Community (EAC) Bloc,” Future Business Journal 8, no. 1 (2022): 33, https://doi. org/ 10. 1186/s4309 3- 022- 00141 - 9.
74.		J. N. Macharia, “An Analysis Factors Influencing Demand for Poultry and Fish Feeds in Kenya” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2017).
75.		K. O. Ouko, J. B. Mboya, A. W. Mukhebi, et al., “Effect of Replacing Fish Meal With Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal on Growth Performance and Economic Efficiency of Nile Tilapia,” Fundamental and Applied Agriculture 9, no. 1 (2024): 1–9, https://doi. org/ 10. 5455/ faa. 154509.
76.		A. J. Rothuis, M. N. Turenhout, A. van Duijn, et al., Aquaculture in East Africa; A Regional Approach. LEI Report IMARES C153/14| LEI 14–120 (LEI Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre), 2014), 54.
77.		H. Cheng and M. Sørensen, “Feed Manufacturing Technology,” in Feed and Feeding for Fish and Shellfish (Academic Press, 2025), 279–307.
78.		L. K. Ole- Moiyoi, “Fishing for Answers: Can Aquaculture Transform Food Security in Rural Kenya” (Doctoral diss., Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2017).
79.		B. Nyandat and G. O. Owiti, Aquaculture Needs Assessment Mission Report. Report/Rapport: SF-FAO/2013/24 (FAO- SmartFish Programme of the Indian Ocean Commission, 2013), 1–83.
80.		U. Kleih, J. Linton, A. Marr, M. Mactaggart, D. Naziri, and J. E. Orchard, “Financial Services for Small and Medium- Scale Aquaculture and Fisheries Producers,” Marine Policy 37 (2013): 106–114, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpol. 2012. 04. 006.
81.		MacroTrends, “Kenya Inflation Rate 1960–2024,” 2024, https:// www. macro trends. net/ globa l- metri cs/ count ries/ KEN/ kenya/ infla tion- rate- cpi.
82.		F. A. Esilaba, W. N. Moturi, and M. A. Mokua, “Urban Consumers' Fish Preferences and the Determinants Influencing Fish Selection and Consumption: Case Study of Nakuru Town, Kenya,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 5, no. 3 (2017): 356–360.
83.		M. J. Cheserek, K. O. Obiero, E. Menach, and E. O. Ogello, “Fish and Fish Products Consumption Behaviours and Attitudes of Farmers in Western Kenya,” African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 22, no. 9 (2022): 21503–21527, https://doi. org/ 10. 18697/ aj- fand. 114. 21550 .
84.		J. O. Omukoto, N. A. Graham, and C. C. Hicks, “Fish Contributions Toward Nutritional Security in Kenya,” Food Security 16, no. 4 (2024): 951–971, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1257 1- 024- 01459 - 8.
85.		K. O. Ouko, J. B. Mboya, K. O. Obiero, et al., “Determinants of Fish Farmers' Awareness of Insect- Based Aquafeeds in Kenya; the Case of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal,” Cogent Food & Agriculture 9, no. 1 (2023): 2187185, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 932. 2023. 2187185.
86.		M. Cheserek, K. Obiero, and E. Ogelo, “Eat More Fish: For Better Nutrition Outcomes, National Fisheries and Food Policies in Kenya Should Include Aquaculture in Developing Positive Attitudes Towards Consumption of Value- Added Fish Products,” Samudra Report 86 (2021): 20–22.
87.		J. Vince and M. Haward, “Hybrid Governance of Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges,” Journal of Environmental Management 201 (2017): 138–144, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jenvm an. 2017. 06. 039.
88.		S. Partelow, F. Asif, C. Béné, et al., “Aquaculture Governance: Five Engagement Arenas for Sustainability Transformation,” Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability 65 (2023): 101379, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2023. 101379.
89.		C. Brugere, T. Bansal, F. Kruijssen, and M. Williams, “Humanizing Aquaculture Development: Putting Social and Human Concerns at the Center of Future Aquaculture Development,” Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 54, no. 2 (2023): 482–526, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jwas. 12959 .
90.		S. V. Nonås and K. O. Bratseth, “Open Innovation and Knowledge Sharing-Towards a Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture” (master's thesis, University of Stavanger Business School, 2023, 93).
91.		N. Hishamunda, P. Bueno, A. M. Menezes, N. Ridler, P. Wattage, and E. Martone, Improving Governance of Aquaculture Employment: A Global Assessment, vol. 575 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 2014), I, https://openk nowle dge. fao. org/items/ 9adb7 9b2- 0c10- 4238- 8c9b- d99fc af21fd1.
92.		F. J. Awuor, M. A. Opiyo, K. O. Obiero, et al., “Aquaculture Extension Service in Kenya: Farmers and Extension Officers Perspectives,” Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 13, no. 1 (2021): 14–22, https://doi. org/ 10. 5897/JAERD 2020. 1203.
93.		K. O. Obiero, H. Waidbacher, S. Drexler, et al., “Knowledge Management and Investing in Human Capacity Development for Aquacultural Education and Training in Africa,” Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa (2016): 167–183, http://repos itory. au- ibar. org/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 537? show= full.
94.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

G. M. Holeh, J. O. Ochiewo, S. Tsuma, and D. O. Mirera, “Impact of Aquaculture and Mariculture Information Dissemination to the Local
Coastal Communities in Kenya,” Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development 11, no. 9 (2020): 608.
95.		K. Liu, J. Frost, T. L. Welker, and F. T. Barrows, “Comparison of New and Conventional Processing Methods for Their Effects on Physical Properties of Fish Feed,” Animal Feed Science and Technology 273 (2021): 114818, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. anife edsci. 2021. 114818.
96.		M. Bektursunova, V. Sidorova, S. Zhiyenbayeva, N. Mashentseva, and S. Assylbekova, “Effect of Extrusion Process Parameters on Pellet Crumbliness in Fish Feed Production,” Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences 17 (2023): 594–605, https://doi. org/ 10. 5219/ 1886.
97.		M. Ndebele- Murisa, C. P. Mubaya, C. H. Dekesa, A. Samundengo, F. Kapute, and R. Yossa, “Sustainability of Aqua Feeds in Africa: A Narrative Review,” Sustainability 16, no. 23 (2024): 10323, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/su162 310323.
98.		K. O. Ouko, A. W. Mukhebi, K. O. Obiero, and F. A. Opondo, “Using Technology Acceptance Model to Understand Fish Farmers' Intention to Use Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal in Nile Tilapia Production in Kenya,” All Life 15, no. 1 (2022): 884–900, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 26895 293. 2022. 2112765.
99.		R. Yossa, “Development and Scaling of Sustainable Feeds for Resilient Aquatic Food Systems in Sub- Saharan Africa (FASA) Annual Workshop Report,” 2023.
100.		S. V. Vutukuru and T. Njagi, The Development of Digital Services and Their Utilization in Agriculture in Kenya (Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, Egerton University, 2023), 22.
101.		A. S. Jumanne, “Leveraging Digital Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Enhancing Social and Economic Development in Kenya,” International Journal of Agriculture 9, no. 2 (2024): 13–23, https://doi. org/ 10. 47604/ ija. 2546.
102.		U. Adhikari, A. P. Nejadhashemi, and S. A. Woznicki, “Climate Change and Eastern Africa: A Review of Impact on Major Crops,” Food and Energy Security 4, no. 2 (2015): 110–132, https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ fes3. 61.
103.		B. K. Kogo, L. Kumar, and R. Koech, “Climate Change and Variability in Kenya: A Review of Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security,” Environment, Development and Sustainability 23, no. 1 (2021): 23–43, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1066 8- 020- 00589 - 1.
104.		G. M. Hall, “Impact of Climate Change on Aquaculture: The Need for Alternative Feed Components,” Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 15, no. 3 (2015): 569–574, https://doi. org/ 10. 4194/ 13032712- v15_2_ 44.
105.		R. Jannathulla, V. Rajaram, R. Kalanjiam, K. Ambasankar, M. Muralidhar, and J. S. Dayal, “Fishmeal Availability in the Scenarios of Climate Change: Inevitability of Fishmeal Replacement in Aquafeeds and Approaches for the Utilization of Plant Protein Sources,” Aquaculture Research 50, no. 12 (2019): 3493–3506, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/are. 14324 .
106.		R. Tumwebaze, “The Status of Lake Victoria Fisheries Under Limited Access Fishery,” in Global Conference on Tenure and User Rights in Fisheries 2018 Achieving Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (FAO, 2018), 1–6.
107.		G. Kidegho, R. Kinyua, C. M. Muriithi, and F. Njoka, “Innovative Solar Photovoltaic and Thermoelectric Power Generator for a Recirculating Aquaculture System,” 2020, https://ir. tum. ac. ke/ bitst ream/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 17575/ G% 202. pdf. crdow nload? seque nce= 1& isAll owed= y.
108.		J. M. Munguti, J. G. Kirimi, K. O. Obiero, et al., “Aqua- Feed Wastes: Impact on Natural Systems and Practical Mitigations—A Review,” Journal of Agricultural Science 13, no. 1 (2020): 111, https://doi. org/ 10. 5539/jas.v13n1 p111.
109.		C. Campanati, D. Willer, J. Schubert, and D. C. Aldridge, “Sustainable Intensification of Aquaculture Through Nutrient Recycling and Circular Economies: More Fish, Less Waste, Blue Growth,” Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 30, no. 2 (2022): 143–169, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23308 249. 2021. 1897520.
110.		R. E. Scroggins, J. P. Fry, M. T. Brown, et al., “Renewable Energy in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Case Studies From the United States,” Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022): 134153, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2022. 134153.
111.		C. Mireri and S. Letema, “Review of Environmental Governance in Kenya: Analysis of Environmental Policy and Institutional Frameworks,” Political, Social and Environmental Issues 53 (2012): 153–166.
112.		K. Muigua, “Enhancing Environmental Governance Through Law and Other Tools: The Efficacy of Kenya's Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA),” 2023, http:// kmco. co. ke/wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2023/ 01/ Enhan cing- Envir onmen tal- Gover nance - throu gh- Law- and- Other-Tools_ - Effic acy- of- EMCA- Kariu ki- Muigu a- Janua ry- 2023. pdf.
113.		J. Malala, “Consumer Law and Policy in Kenya,” Journal of Consumer Policy 41, no. 4 (2018): 355–371, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1060 3- 018- 9390- 3.
114.		A. Sudaryono, M. Hasan, and C. Yusuf, “Analysis of Traceability and Sustainability of Fish Meal and Fish Oil on Aquafeed Industry in Indonesia,” Aquacultura Indonesiana 14, no. 3 (2013): 135–148.
115.		N. Mai, S. Gretar Bogason, S. Arason, S. Víkingur Árnason, and T. Geir Matthíasson, “Benefits of Traceability in Fish Supply Chains— Case Studies,” British Food Journal 112, no. 9 (2010): 976–1002, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00070 70101 1074354.
116.		E. N. Mathai, D. K. Barwani, V. Mwashi, et al., “Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) On- Farm Feeding: Effect on Performance and Profitability,” Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology 23, no. 3 (2024): 120–143, https:// doi. org/ 10. 4314/jagst.v23i3. 8.
117.		K. Soma, J. Kals, M. A. Opiyo, et al., “Toward Sustainable Food Systems: Can Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) Become a Sustainable Source of Protein to Enhance the Nutritional Benefits of Cultured Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)?,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 8 (2024): 1283150, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2024. 1283150.
118.		S. Ganguly, K. Drucza, W. Njiriri, and R. Yossa, “Development and Scaling of Sustainable Feeds for Resilient Aquatic Food Systems in Sub- Saharan Africa: Gender and Inclusive Development Action Plan (GIDAP) Outcome Report,” 2023, https://digit alarchive.world fishc enter. org/ items/ 175ff46d- 02c2- 482e- bd59- 098ae d186886.
119.		M. A. Opiyo, C. M. Githukia, J. M. Munguti, and H. Charo- Karisa, “Growth Performance, Carcass Composition and Profitability of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) Fed Commercial and On- Farm Made Fish Feed in Earthen Ponds,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 1, no. 5 (2014): 12–17.
120.		R. Singh, R. Das, S. Sangwan, et al., “Utilisation of Agro- Industrial Waste for Sustainable Green Production: A Review,” Environmental Sustainability 4, no. 4 (2021): 619–636, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s4239 8021- 00200 - x.
121.		A. D. Adéyèmi, A. P. Kayodé, I. B. Chabi, O. B. Odouaro, M. J. Nout, and A. R. Linnemann, “Screening Local Feed Ingredients of Benin, West Africa, for Fish Feed Formulation,” Aquaculture Reports 17 (2020): 100386, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aqrep. 2020. 100386.
122.		R. I. Keremah and J. Esquire, “Comparative Assessment of Growth Performance and Economics of Production of Clarias gariepi- nus Fingerlings in Ponds and Tanks,” Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4, no. 2 (2014): 34–38, https://doi. org/ 10. 15580/ GJAS. 2014.2. 04151 3577.
123.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

J. Spinelli, Aquaculture Development and Coordination Programme, Fish Feed Technology, FAO Corporate Document Reposikory, Produced
by Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, vol. 4 (National Marine Fisheries Services Seattle, Washington, 2014), 541–546.
124.		M. K. Ahmad and S. Ibrahim, “Local Fish Meal Formulation: Its Principles, Prospects and Problems in Fishery Industry,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 4, no. 1 (2016): 276–279.
125.		F. Charo, P. Mbuthia, L. Bebora, and J. M. Nguta, “Influence of Aquaculture Management Practices and Water Quality on Bacterial Occurrence in Fish Culture Units in Kenya,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 11, no. 2 (2023): 1–7, https://doi. org/ 10. 22271/ fish. 2023.v11. i2a. 2782.
126.		I. Nyamwaka, E. Monda, R. Ombori, and J. Kwach, “Prevalence and Characterization of Moulds Associated With Fish Feeds Sold in Kisii County, Kenya,” Journal of Advanced Microbiology 20 (2020): 31– 41, https://doi. org/ 10. 9734/jamb/ 2020/v20i8 30273 .
127.		M. Huang, Y. G. Zhou, X. G. Yang, et al., “Optimizing Feeding Frequencies in Fish: A Meta-Analysis and Machine Learning Approach,” Aquaculture 595 (2025): 741678, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aquac ulture. 2024. 741678.
128.		A. F. El- Sayed, Tilapia Feed Management Practices in Sub- Saharan Africa. On-Farm Feeding and Feed Management in Aquaculture, vol. 583 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 2013), 377–405, https://www. fao. org/fishe ry/docs/ CDrom/ T583/ root/ 14. pdf.
129.		J. K. Walakira, E. Hinrichsen, V. Tarus, et al., “Scaling Aquaculture for Food Security and Employment in Africa—Insights From Egypt, Kenya and Nigeria,” 2023, https://dir. muni. ac. ug/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500. 12260/ 562/ Langi_worki ng% 20pap er_ 2023_1. pdf? seque nce= 1& isAll owed= y.
130.		A. Maundu, J. Munguti, R. Sharma, et al., “Apparent Protein Digestibility and Growth Performance of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) Fed on Sunflower and Cotton Seed Meal as Substitutes for Freshwater Shrimp Meal (Caridina nilotica),” Aquaculture Research 2024, no. 1 (2024): 2713506, https://doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 2024/ 2713506.
131.		C. Ragasa, Y. O. Osei- Mensah, and S. Amewu, “Impact of Fish Feed Formulation Training on Feed Use and Farmers' Income: Evidence From Ghana,” Aquaculture 558 (2022): 738378, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aquac ulture. 2022. 738378.
132.		R. Audu and I. A. Yola, “Contemporary Issues in Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Review on Non–Conventional Feed Ingredients for Fish Feed in Nigeria,” Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 13, no. 2 (2021): 22–28, https://doi. org/ 10. 4314/ bajop as.v13i2. 3.
133.		J. Kals, M. A. Opiyo, E. Rurangwa, K. Soma, A. Ndambi, and A. Vernooij, “Use of Black Soldier Fly Larvae and Freshwater Shrimp to Partly Substitute Commercial Diet for Nile Tilapia Cultured in Smallholder Fish Farms—A Case Study in Busia County, Kenya,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 8 (2024): 1298551, https://doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2024. 1298551.
134.		S. H. Pishgar- Komleh, A. Vernooij, and P. T. Straub, “Carbon Footprint of Processing City Market Waste for Animal Feed With Black Soldier Flies in Kampala, Uganda,” 2022, https://doi. org/ 10. 18174/ 574099.
135.		I. Hopkins, L. P. Newman, H. Gill, and J. Danaher, “The Influence of Food Waste Rearing Substrates on Black Soldier Fly Larvae Protein Composition: A Systematic Review,” Insects 12, no. 7 (2021): 608, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/insec ts120 70608 .
136.		G. M. Holeh, M. A. Opiyo, C. L. Brown, et al., “Effect of Different Waste Substrates on the Growth, Development and Proximate Composition of Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae,” Livestock Research for Rural Development 34, no. 7 (2022): 1.
137.		R. R. Fantatto, J. Mota, C. Ligeiro, et al., “Exploring Sustainable Alternatives in Aquaculture Feeding: The Role of Insects,” Aquaculture Reports 37 (2024): 102228, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aqrep. 2024. 102228.
138.		N. Chebet, “Determinants of the Performance of CommunityBased Projects: A Case of Fish Farming in Bomet County” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2019), https://erepo sitory. uonbi. ac. ke/ bitst ream/ handle/ 11295/ 152813/ Chebet_ Deter minan ts% 20Of% 20The% 20Per forma nce% 20Of% 20Com munit y- Based% 20Pro jects% 20A% 20Case% 20Of% 20Fish% 20Far ming% 20In% 20Bom et% 20Cou nty. pdf? seque nce= 1.
139.		M. C. Nandeesha, M. Halwart, R. G. Gómez, et al., Supporting Farmer Innovations, Recognizing Indigenous Knowledge and Disseminating Success Stories (Farming the Waters for People and Food, 2010), 823.
140.		N. Douglas, C. Gor, and K. Rebecca, “Evaluating Farmers' Awareness and Adoption of Housefly Maggots as Alternative Protein for Broiler Chicken Production in Mbarara District, Western Uganda,” Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences 17, no. 3 (2024): 101– 115, https://doi. org/ 10. 21608/ eajbsa. 2024. 376803.
141.		G. K. Kubiriza, J. Zalwango, N. M. Semwanga, et al., “Quality Attributes of Fish Feeds and Their Potential Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem and Aquaculture Sustainability in East Africa,” Journal of Applied Aquaculture 36, no. 3 (2024): 642–665, https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10454 438. 2023. 2294087.
142.		S. Omasaki, M. M. Mutili, and L. Kitonga, “Proximate Composition of Some Fish Feed Samples for Small- Scale Aquaculture Farmers in Bobasi Sub- County, Kisii County, Kenya,” Asian Journal of Biology 20, no. 6 (2024): 52–59, https://doi. org/ 10. 9734/ajob/ 2024/v20i6414.
143.		S. Tsairidou, R. D. Houston, and I. T. Karapanagiotidis, “The Importance of Nutrition and Selective Breeding in Aquaculture Production,” in Aquatic Food Security (CABI, 2024), 14–49, https://doi. org/ 10. 52517/ 97817 89183 368. 003.
144.		S. P. Lall and A. Dumas, “Nutritional Requirements of Cultured Fish: Formulating Nutritionally Adequate Feeds,” in Feed and Feeding Practices in Aquaculture (Woodhead Publishing, 2022), 65–132, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978- 0- 12- 82159 8- 2. 00005 - 9.
145.		P. White, Environmental Consequences of Poor Feed Quality and Feed Management, vol. 583 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 2013), 553–564.
146.		S. Xing, X. Liang, X. Zhang, et al., “Essential Amino Acid Requirements of Fish and Crustaceans, a Meta- Analysis,” Reviews in Aquaculture 16, no. 3 (2024): 1069–1086, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ raq. 12886 .
147.		T. A. Shipton and M. R. Hasan, An Overview of the Current Status of Feed Management Practices (FAO, 2013), 3–20, https://www. cabid igita llibr ary. org/doi/full/ 10. 5555/ 20143 141767.
148.		J. Munguti, K. Obiero, H. Odame, et al., “Key Limitations of Fish Feeds, Feed Management Practices, and Opportunities in Kenya's Aquaculture Enterprise,” African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 21, no. 2 (2021): 17415–17434, https://doi. org/ 10. 18697/ ajfand. 97. 20455 .
149.		K. O. Onyango, T. Sulo, and J. Mose, “Determinants of Aquaculture Productivity Among Small Holder Farmers in Bungoma County, Kenya,” Journal of Business, Economics and Management Research Studies 1, no. 4 (2023): 22–30.
150.		E. Rurangwa and J. B. Kabagambe, Review and Analysis of SmallScale Aquaculture Production in East Africa; Part 2 (Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 2018), https:// libra ry.wur. nl/ WebQu ery/wurpubs/ 544804.
151.		K. K. Quagrainie, C. C. Ngugi, and S. Amisah, “Analysis of the Use of Credit Facilities by Small- Scale Fish Farmers in Kenya,” Aquaculture International 18 (2010): 393–402, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1049 9- 009- 9252- 8.
152.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

F. W. Moejes and K. B. Moejes, “Algae for Africa: Microalgae as a Source of Food, Feed and Fuel in Kenya,” African Journal of
Biotechnology 16, no. 7 (2017): 288–301, https://doi. org/ 10. 5897/AJB20 16. 15721 .
153.		P. Spolaore, C. Joannis- Cassan, E. Duran, and A. Isambert, “Commercial Applications of Microalgae,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 101, no. 2 (2006): 87–96, https://doi. org/ 10. 1263/jbb. 101. 87.
154.		S. M. Aly, N. I. ElBanna, and M. Fathi, “Chlorella in Aquaculture: Challenges, Opportunities, and Disease Prevention for Sustainable Development,” Aquaculture International 32, no. 2 (2024): 1559–1586, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1049 9- 023- 01229 - x.
155.		G. Rajauria, “Seaweeds: A Sustainable Feed Source for Livestock and Aquaculture,” in Seaweed Sustainability (Academic Press, 2015), 389–420, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978- 0- 12- 41869 7- 2. 00015 - 5.
156.		L. Pereira, J. Cotas, and A. M. Gonçalves, “Seaweed Proteins: A Step Towards Sustainability?,” Nutrients 16, no. 8 (2024): 1123, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ nu160 81123 .
157.		R. Mwendwa, M. Wawire, and P. Kahenya, “Potential for Use of Seaweed as a Fish Feed Ingredient: A Review,” Journal of Agricultural Science 15, no. 2 (2023): 96–108, https://doi. org/ 10. 5539/jas.v15n2p96.
158.		C. Chen, B. Sun, X. Li, et al., “N- 3 Essential Fatty Acids in Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus: Quantification of Optimum Requirement of Dietary Linolenic Acid in Juvenile Fish,” Aquaculture 416 (2013): 99– 104, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aquac ulture. 2013. 09. 003.
159.		A. R. Angell, S. F. Angell, R. de Nys, and N. A. Paul, “Seaweed as a Protein Source for Mono- Gastric Livestock,” Trends in Food Science and Technology 54 (2016): 74–84, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tifs. 2016. 05. 014.
160.		P. Rawiwan, Y. Peng, I. G. Paramayuda, and S. Y. Quek, “Red Seaweed: A Promising Alternative Protein Source for Global Food Sustainability,” Trends in Food Science & Technology 123 (2022): 37–56, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tifs. 2022. 03. 003.
161.		L. V. Lagos and H. H. Stein, “Chemical Composition and Amino Acid Digestibility of Soybean Meal Produced in the United States, China, Argentina, Brazil, or India,” Journal of Animal Science 95, no. 4 (2017): 1626–1636, https://doi. org/ 10. 2527/jas. 2017. 1440.
162.		D. Simeanu, P. C. Boişteanu, R. Lazăr, V. Vintilă, and B. V. Avarvarei, “Chemical Composition and Nutritional Evaluation of Soybean Meal,” Scientific Papers. Series D. Animal Science 62, no. 1 (2019): 97–104.
163.		S. Charisiadou, C. Halling, N. Jiddawi, et al., “Coastal Aquaculture in Zanzibar, Tanzania,” Aquaculture 546 (2022): 737331, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aquac ulture. 2021. 737331.
164.		A. K. Gabriel, J. Mwaluma, D. Mirera, J. Kairo, and J. Wakibia, “Seaweed Production in Kenya Amid Environmental, Market, and COVID- 19 Pandemic Challenges,” in Tropical Phyconomy Coalition Development: Focus on Eucheumatoid Seaweeds (Springer International Publishing, 2024), 229–238, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 3- 031- 47806 - 2_ 18.
165.		D. O. Mirera, A. Kimathi, M. M. Ngarari, E. W. Magondu, M. Wainaina, and A. Ototo, “Societal and Environmental Impacts of Seaweed Farming in Relation to Rural Development: The Case of Kibuyuni Village, South Coast, Kenya,” Ocean and Coastal Management 194 (2020): 105253, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oceco aman. 2020. 105253.
166.		M. M. Mbaka, J. H. Cox, and S. Ronan, “Aquaculture in Africa: Aquatic Animal Welfare, Impact on the Environment and the Sustainability of the Sector,” 2022, https://www.wellb eingi ntlstudies repos itory. org/aw_ farm_ aqua/1/.
167.		A. O. Amosu, D. Robertson-Andersson, G. Maneveldt, R. J. Anderson, and J. J. Bolton, “South African Seaweed Aquaculture: A Sustainable Development Example for Other African Coastal Countries,” 2013, https://acade micjo urnals. org/journ al/AJAR/ artic le- full- text- pdf/ 5C21A A041673.
168.		D. Thiao and S. W. Bunting, Socio-Economic and Biological Impacts of the Fish-Based Feed Industry for Sub- Saharan Africa (Food & Agriculture Organization, 2022).
169.		N. Tran, E. Ogello, N. Outa, M. Muthoka, and Y. Hoong, Promising Aquaculture Technologies and Innovations for Transforming Food Systems Toward Low Emission Pathways in Kenya: A Review. Working Paper (WorldFish, 2023), https://cgspa ce. cgiar. org/ bitst ream/ han- dle/ 10568/ 136166/ d602e 1c444 820f2 3d4d6 43e39 9115e 97. pdf? seque nce= - 1.
170.		M. W. Kariuki, D. K. Barwani, V. Mwashi, et al., “Partial Replacement of Fishmeal With Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal in Nile Tilapia Diets Improves Performance and Profitability in Earthen Pond,” Scientific African 24 (2024): e02222, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sciaf. 2024. e02222.
171.		M. R. Dye, “The Use of Fermented Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia il- lucens) Larvae Meal to Replace Fish Meal in Diets for Juvenile Mixed Species Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus/O. aureus)” (master's thesis, University of Hawai'i at Hilo, 2024), https://www. proqu est. com/openv iew/ a45a2 4d199 717a0 48dce 57637 f7fab 71/1? pq- origs ite= gscho lar& cbl= 18750 & diss=y.
172.		A. O. Okello, “Farmers' Perceptions and Preferences for Commercial Insect- Based Feed in Kiambu County, Kenya” (Doctoral diss., University of Nairobi, 2022).
173.		P. Bossier and J. Ekasari, “Biofloc Technology Application in Aquaculture to Support Sustainable Development Goals,” Microbial Biotechnology 10, no. 5 (2017): 1012–1016, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 17517915. 12836 .
174.		M. Muthoka, E. O. Ogello, H. Ouma, and K. Obiero, “Periphyton Technology Enhances Growth Performance and Delays Prolific Breeding of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758), Juveniles,” Asian Fisheries Science 34, no. 4 (2021): 290–300, https://doi. org/ 10. 33997/j. afs. 2021. 34.4. 002.
175.		E. O. Ogello, N. O. Outa, K. O. Obiero, D. N. Kyule, and J. M. Munguti, “The Prospects of Biofloc Technology (BFT) for Sustainable Aquaculture Development,” Scientific African 14 (2021): e01053, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sciaf. 2021. e01053.
176.		R. N. Munubi and H. A. Lamtane, Animal Waste and Agro-ByProducts: Valuable Resources for Producing Fish at Low Costs in SubSaharan Countries (IntechOpen, 2021), https://doi. org/ 10. 5772/ intec hopen. 95057.
177.		A. Ranjan and K. Rajalakshmi, “Government Initiatives and Policies Supporting Climate- Resilient Aquaculture Systems Through the Development of Sustainable Fish Feeds,” in Developing Sustainable Feed Ingredients for Fish Nutrition and Climate Resilient Aquaculture (FAO, 2024), 140.
178.		P. Murekezi, O. Habimana, and A. Menezes, Public-Private Partnership Innovations for Aquaculture Development With a Focus on Sub- Saharan Africa. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 713 (FAO, 2024), https://doi. org/ 10. 4060/cc9252en.
179.		H. P. Mohale, S. A. Narsale, R. V. Kadam, et al., “Artificial Intelligence in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Enhancing Sustainability and Productivity,” Archives of Current Research International 24, no. 3 (2024): 106–123, https://doi. org/ 10. 9734/acri/ 2024/v24i3650.
180.		T. C. Mahendra and S. Sunardi, “Automatic Feeding System in Pond Fish Farming Based on the Internet of Things,” Buletin Ilmiah Sarjana Teknik Elektro 5, no. 2 (2023): 190–200, https://doi. org/ 10. 12928/ biste.v5i2. 5784.
181.		S. A. Fasoyin, W. A. Akinfiresoye, L. A. Agbetoye, L. A. Olutayo, and O. Adetuyi, “Performance Evaluation of a Small- Scale Mechanical Fish Feeder,” European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research 6, no. 5 (2021): 168–170.
182.		
2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

M. Føre, K. Frank, T. Norton, et al., “Precision Fish Farming: A New Framework to Improve Production in Aquaculture,” Biosystems Engineering 173 (2018): 176–193, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biosy stems eng. 2017. 10. 014.

2025, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.70081 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

183.		A. Cherono and C. W. Recha, “Vulnerability to Climate Change From the Kenyan Perspective,” Open Access Library Journal 11, no. 8 (2024): 1–8, https://doi. org/ 10. 4236/oalib. 1111874.
184.		B. Shiferaw, B. M. Prasanna, J. Hellin, and M. Bänziger, “Crops That Feed the World 6. Past Successes and Future Challenges to the Role Played by Maize in Global Food Security,” Food Security 3 (2011): 307–327, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1257 1- 011- 0140- 5.
185.		M. Muthoka, K. O. Ouko, J. B. Mboya, et al., “Socio- Economic Impacts of Climate Change and Adaptation Actions Among Smallholder Fish Farmers in Sub- Saharan Africa,” Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries 4, no. 3 (2024): e182, https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ aff2. 182.
186.		M. R. Chasna, D. U. Rajawardana, and P. N. Amunugoda, “An Overview of the Impact of Climatic Change on the Occurrence of Aflatoxins in Cereals: Sri Lankan Perspective,” YSF Thematic Publication 2024 (2024): 19.
187.		M. Oliveira and V. Vasconcelos, “Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Fish Feed and Its Effects: A Review,” Toxins 12, no. 3 (2020): 160, https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/toxin s1203 0160.
188.		T. Chen, “Why Fish Feed Prices Have Reached Record Highs,” 2024, https:// blog. manol inaqua. com/en/ recor d- high- fish- feed- prices.
189.		M. M. Islam, M. I. Khan, and A. Barman, “Impact of Novel Coronavirus Pandemic on Aquaculture and Fisheries in Developing Countries and Sustainable Recovery Plans: Case of Bangladesh,” Marine Policy 131 (2021): 104611, https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpol. 2021. 104611.
190.		O. Plotnikov, “The General Situation With Climate Change in the World and Risk Assessment for the Global Economy,” in Global Challenges of Climate Change, Vol. 2: Risk Assessment, Political and Social Dimension of the Green Energy Transition (Springer International Publishing, 2022), 31–47, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 3- 031- 16477 - 4_ 3.
191.		J. M. Munguti, J. G. Kirimi, K. O. Obiero, et al., “Critical Aspects of Aquafeed Value Chain in the Kenyan Aquaculture Sector—A Review,” Sustainable Agriculture Research 10 (2021): 87, https://doi. org/ 10. 5539/ sar.v10n2p87.
192.		A. G. Tacon, M. R. Hasan, and M. Metian, Demand and Supply of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans: Trends and Prospects (FAO, 2011).
193.		A. J. van Riel, M. A. Nederlof, K. Chary, G. F. Wiegertjes, and I. J. de Boer, “Feed- Food Competition in Global Aquaculture: Current Trends and Prospects,” Reviews in Aquaculture 15, no. 3 (2023): 1142–1158, https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ raq. 12804 .
194.		E. M. Irandu and P. Shah, “Biofuel Production Versus Food Security in Kenya,” Africa Journal of Physical Sciences 8 (2023): 1–7.
195.		M. F. Kedir, M. J. Onchieku, J. S. Ntalikwa, and D. Mutta, Developing Circular Economy in Eastern Africa Through Liquid Biofuels: Cases of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania (African Forest Forum, 2022), https:// affor um. org/oldaff/ sites/ defau lt/files/ Engli sh/ Engli sh_ 246. pdf.
196.		K. Chary, P. J. Henriksson, and M. Troell, “Competition for Human Edible Feed Resources in Aquaculture- Looking at Tilapia Farming,” Food Security 15 (2025): 57–72, https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1257 1- 02401513 - 5.
197.		J. J. Mkunda, “Characterizing Market Potential and Developing Business Model for Processed Lake Victoria Sardine Products” (Doctoral diss., NM-AIST, 2020), https://www. acade mia. edu/downl oad/ 10628 6758/ 36399 5265. pdf.