Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:47:21.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm evaluation of the Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): theoretical and practical considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

O Folkedal ,
JM Pettersen ,
MBM Bracke ,
LH Stien ,
J Nilsson ,
C Martins ,
O Breck ,
PJ Midtlyng  and
T Kristiansen
O Folkedal*
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Research, Mail box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway
JM Pettersen
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, Oslo, Norway
MBM Bracke
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands
LH Stien
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Research, Mail box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway
J Nilsson
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Research, Mail box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway
C Martins
Affiliation:
Marine Harvest, Bergen, Norway
O Breck
Affiliation:
Marine Harvest, Bergen, Norway
PJ Midtlyng
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, Oslo, Norway
T Kristiansen
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Research, Mail box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ole.folkedal@imr.no
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The present study investigated the operational feasibility of the recently developed Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0) designed for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) in production cages. Ten salmon farms containing spring smolts were visited twice, first between May and June the first year in sea cages, and secondly 2-3 months later. On each farm the SWIM 1.0 assessments were carried out for the two cages assumed by the farmer to represent the best and worst welfare status. The applied welfare indicators (WIs) were water temperature, salinity, stocking density, lighting, disturbance, daily mortality rate, appetite, sea lice infestation ratio, condition factor, emaciation state, vertebral deformation, maturation stage, smoltification state, fin condition and skin condition. The effective time to carry out the welfare evaluation was about 1.5 h per farm. The results showed some marked differences between visits; relatively larger proportions of emaciated fish were sampled during the first compared to the second visit, and more homogeneous scores of skin and fin damage were found on the second visit. The overall welfare index scores were generally in accordance with the farmers’ ranking of the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’ sea cage during the first visit. Together, the findings of this study suggest that the SWIM model may be employed for documentation of animal welfare over the salmon marine production cycle. The results call attention towards re-assessment of some of the welfare indicators, improved sampling methods, and a more user-friendly interface. All-in-all, the current SWIM model is regarded as a promising candidate tool towards welfare assessment of farmed salmon.

Keywords

animal welfareaquacultureAtlantic salmondiagnosticsea cagesemantic modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 135 - 149
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adams, CE, Turnbull, J, Bell, A, Bron, JE and Huntingford, FA 2007 Multiple determinants of welfare in farmed fish: stocking density, disturbance, and aggression in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 336–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f07-018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, M, Stormoen, M, Schmidt-Posthaus, H, Wahli, T and Midtlyng, PJ 2015 Rapid temperature-dependent wound closure fol-lowing adipose fin clipping of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L). Journal of Fish Diseases 38: 523–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, PJ 2007 Fish welfare: current issues in aquaculture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 199–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aunsmo, A, Skjerve, E and Midtlyng, PJ 2013 Accuracy and precision of harvest stock estimation in Atlantic salmon farming. Aquaculture 396: 113–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleie, H and Skrudland, A 2014 Tap av Laksefisk i SjØ. Report from Mattilsynet (Norwegian Food Authorities), August 2014. Mattilsynet: Brumunddal, Norway. http://www.mattilsynet.no/fisk_og_akvakul-tur/fiskevelferd/tap_av_laksefisk_i_sjo_rapport.15430/binary/Tap%20av%20laksefisk%20i%20sj%C3%B8%20rapport. [Title translation: Mortality of salmonids in sea farms]Google Scholar
Bouck, GR and Smith, SD 1979 Mortality of experimentally descaled smolts of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in fresh and salt water. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108: 67–692.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999a Overall wel-fare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999b Overall wel-fare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002 Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. A: model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, R, Smith, P, Dalsgaard, I, Nilsen, H, Kongshaug, H, Bergh, ⊘ and Samuelsen, O 2006 Winter ulcer disease of post-smolt Atlantic salmon: An unsuitable case for treatment? Aquaculture 253: 171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, DG 2011 Functional morphology of the integumentary sys-tem in fishes. In: Farrell, AP, Cech, JJ, Richards, JG and Stevens, ED (eds) Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology pp 476–488. Elsevier, London: UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374553-8.00108-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folkedal, O, Stien, LH, Nilsson, J, Torgersen, T, Fosseidengen, JE and Oppedal, F 2012 Sea caged Atlantic salmon display size-dependent swimming depth. Aquatic Living Resources 25: 143–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr/2012007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hevrøy, EM, Boxaspen, K, Oppedal, F, Taranger, GL and Holm, JC 2003 The effect of artificial light treatment and depth on the infestation of the sea louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) culture. Aquaculture 220: 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00189-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, GM 1982 Wound healing in fish larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 57: 149–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(82)90189-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA, Adams, C, Braithwaite, VA, Kadri, S, Pottinger, TG, Sandøe, P and Turnbull, JF 2006 Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 332–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.001046.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA and Kadri, S 2008 Welfare and fish. In: Branson, EJ (ed) Fish Welfare pp 19–31. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470697610.ch2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, M, Finstad, B, McKinley, RS, Eliassen, RA, Carlsen, KT and Evjen, T 2005 Stress responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) smolts during commercial well boat transports, and effects on survival after transfer to sea. Aquaculture 243: 373–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.10.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juell, J-E, Fernö, A, Furevik, D and Huse, I 1994 Influence of hunger level and food availability on the spatial distribution of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L, in sea cages. Aquaculture Research 25:439–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1994.tb00709.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, J, Folkedal, O, Fosseidengen, JE, Stien, LH and Oppedal, F 2013 PIT tagged individual Atlantic salmon registered at static depth positions in a sea cage: Vertical size stratification and implications for fish sampling. Aquacultural Engineering 55: 32–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2013.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, C, Jones, HAC, Damsgård, B, Flood, M, Midling, KØ, Roque, A, Sæther, B-S and Cottee, SY 2012 Injuries and deformities in fish: their potential impacts upon aquacultural pro-dution and welfare. Fish Physiology & Biochemistry 38: 61–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10695-011-9557-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olesen, I, Alfnes, F, Bensze Røra, M and Kolstad, K 2010 Eliciting consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livestock Science 127: 218–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppedal, F, Dempster, T and Stien, LH 2011a Environmental driv-ers of Atlantic salmon behaviour in sea-cages: A review. Aquaculture 311:1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.11.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppedal, F, Vågseth, T, Dempster, T, Juell, J-E and Johansson, D 2011b Fluctuating sea-cage environments modify the effects of stocking densities on production and welfare param-eters of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L). Aquaculture 315: 361–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.02.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersen, JM, Bracke, MB, Midtlyng, PJ, Folkedal, O, Stien, LH, Steffenak, H and Kristiansen, TS 2014 Salmon welfare index model 2.0: An extended model for overall welfare assess-ment of caged Atlantic salmon, based on a review of selected wel-fare indicators and intended for fish health professionals. Reviews in Aquaculture 5: 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/raq.12039Google Scholar
Read, N 2008 Fish farmer's perspective of fish welfare. In: Branson, EJ (ed) Fish Welfare pp 101–110. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470697610.ch7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segner, H, Sundh, H, Buchmann, K, Douxfils, J, Sundell, KS, Mathieu, C, Ruane, N, Jutfelt, F, Toften, H and Vaughan, L 2012 Health of farmed fish: Its relation to fish welfare and its util-ity as welfare indicator. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 38(1): 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10695-011-9517-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, S, Green, D, Turnbull, J, Crumlish, M and Murray, AG 2011 A baseline method for benchmarking mortality losses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) production. Aquaculture 314: 7–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, C, Saugen, E, Swenson, L-P, Bruun, L and Isaksson, T 2003 Determination of fat in live farmed Atlantic salmon using non-invasive NIR techniques. Science of Food and Agriculture 83:692–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, C and Ribble, CS 1995 An evaluation of surface mori-bund salmon as indicators of seapen disease status. Aquaculture 133: 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00400-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stien, LH, Bracke, MB, Folkedal, O, Nilsson, J, Oppedal, F, Torgersen, T, Kittilsen, S, Midtlyng, P, ⊘verli, ⊘ and Kristiansen, TS 2013 Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): A semantic model for overall welfare assessment of caged Atlantic salmon: Review of the selected welfare indicators and model presentation. Reviews in Aquaculture 5: 33–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01083.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, J, Bell, A, Adams, C, Bron, J and Huntingford, FA 2005 Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture 243: 121–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar