Safeguarding the many guises of farmed fish welfare

Health of farmed fish: its relation to fish welfare and its utility as welfare indicator

This brief review focuses on health and biological function as cornerstones of fish welfare. From the function-based point of view, good welfare is reflected in the ability of the animal to cope with infectious and non-infectious stressors, thereby maintaining homeostasis and good health, whereas stressful husbandry conditions and protracted suffering will lead to the loss of the coping ability and, thus, to impaired health. In the first part of the review, the physiological processes through which stressful husbandry conditions modulate health of farmed fish are examined. If fish are subjected to unfavourable husbandry conditions, the resulting disruption of internal homeostasis necessitates energy-demanding physiological adjustments (allostasis/acclimation). The ensuing energy drain leads to trade-offs with other energy-demanding processes such as the functioning of the primary epithelial barriers (gut, skin, gills) and the immune system. Understanding of the relation between husbandry conditions, allostatic responses and fish health provides the basis for the second theme developed in this review, the potential use of biological function and health parameters as operational welfare indicators (OWIs). Advantages of function- and health-related parameters are that they are relatively straightforward to recognize and to measure and are routinely monitored in most aquaculture units, thereby providing feasible tools to assess fish welfare under practical farming conditions. As the efforts to improve fish welfare and environmental sustainability lead to increasingly diverse solutions, in particular integrated production, it is imperative that we have objective OWIs to compare with other production forms, such as high-density aquaculture. However, to receive the necessary acceptance for legislation, more robust scientific backing of the health- and function-related OWIs is urgently needed.

Behavioural indicators of welfare in farmed fish

Behaviour represents a reaction to the environment as fish perceive it and is therefore a key element of fish welfare. This review summarises the main findings on how behavioural changes have been used to assess welfare in farmed fish, using both functional and feeling-based approaches. Changes in foraging behaviour, ventilatory activity, aggression, individual and group swimming behaviour, stereotypic and abnormal behaviour have been linked with acute and chronic stressors in aquaculture and can therefore be regarded as likely indicators of poor welfare. On the contrary, measurements of exploratory behaviour, feed anticipatory activity and reward-related operant behaviour are beginning to be considered as indicators of positive emotions and welfare in fish. Despite the lack of scientific agreement about the existence of sentience in fish, the possibility that they are capable of both positive and negative emotions may contribute to the development of new strategies (e.g. environmental enrichment) to promote good welfare. Numerous studies that use behavioural indicators of welfare show that behavioural changes can be interpreted as either good or poor welfare depending on the fish species. It is therefore essential to understand the species-specific biology before drawing any conclusions in relation to welfare. In addition, different individuals within the same species may exhibit divergent coping strategies towards stressors, and what is tolerated by some individuals may be detrimental to others. Therefore, the assessment of welfare in a few individuals may not represent the average welfare of a group and vice versa. This underlines the need to develop on-farm, operational behavioural welfare indicators that can be easily used to assess not only the individual welfare but also the welfare of the whole group (e.g. spatial distribution). With the ongoing development of video technology and image processing, the on-farm surveillance of behaviour may in the near future represent a low-cost, noninvasive tool to assess the welfare of farmed fish.

Seasonality and heterogeneity of live fish movements in Scottish fish farms

Movement of live animals is a key contributor to disease spread. Farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, rainbow trout Onchorynchus mykiss and brown/sea trout Salmo trutta are initially raised in freshwater (FW) farms; all the salmon and some of the trout are subsequently moved to seawater (SW) farms. Frequently, fish are moved between farms during their FW stage and sometimes during their SW stage. Seasonality and differences in contact patterns across production phases have been shown to influence the course of an epidemic in livestock; however, these parameters have not been included in previous network models studying disease transmission in salmonids. In Scotland, farmers are required to register fish movements onto and off their farms; these records were used in the present study to investigate seasonality and heterogeneity of movements for each production phase separately for farmed salmon, rainbow trout and brown/sea trout. Salmon FW-FW and FW-SW movements showed a higher degree of heterogeneity in number of contacts and different seasonal patterns compared with SW-SW movements. FW-FW movements peaked from May to July and FW-SW movements peaked from March to April and from October to November. Salmon SW-SW movements occurred more consistently over the year and showed fewer connections and number of repeated connections between farms. Therefore, the salmon SW-SW network might be treated as homogeneous regarding the number of connections between farms and without seasonality. However, seasonality and production phase should be included in simulation models concerning FW-FW and FW-SW movements specifically. The number of rainbow trout FW-FW and brown/sea trout FW-FW movements were different from random. However, movements from other production phases were too low to discern a seasonal pattern or differences in contact pattern.

Balancing the needs and preferences of humans against concerns for fishes: how to handle the emerging ethical discussions regarding capture fisheries?

How can stakeholders within the fisheries community engage in constructive ethical discussions? Drawing on experiences from previous debates surrounding the human use of animals, this paper presents a proactive approach whereby stakeholders can create a framework for ethical discussion of capture fisheries.