Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to weigh the concern for welfare of fish against the human interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist that suggest how this might be approached.Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animal's condition, on its subjective experience of that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natural life. These provide different, legitimate, perspectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering.An unresolved and controversial issue in discussions about animal welfare is whether nonhuman animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in humans is an important part of the neural mechanism that generates the subjective experience of suffering, is lacking in fish and non-mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. A strong alternative view, however, is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffering, though this may be different in degree and kind from the human experience of this state.Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly aversive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of other harmful conditions is a cause for concern in terms of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing evidence that fish can experience fear-like states and that they avoid situations in which they have experienced adverse conditions. Human activities that potentially compromise fish welfare include anthropogenic changes to the environment, commercial fisheries, recreational angling, aquaculture, ornamental fish keeping and scientific research. The resulting harm to fish welfare is a cost that must be minimized and weighed against the benefits of the activity concerned.Wild fish naturally experience a variety of adverse conditions, from attack by predators or conspecifics to starvation or exposure to poor environmental conditions. This does not make it acceptable for humans to impose such conditions on fish, but it does suggest that fish will have †Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: þ 44 (0) 141 330 5975; fax: þ 44 (0) 330 5971;

Individual common carp Cyprinus carpio were screened repeatedly for risk taking (rate of exploration of a novel, potentially dangerous environment) and for competitive ability (success in gaining access to a spatially restricted food source). Marked differences in behaviour were evident, and significant consistency in individual responses across trials was found for both risk taking and competitive ability. In addition, there was a significant positive relationship between individual performance in these two contexts, with fish that explored more quickly in the novel environment tending to be among the first to gain access to restricted food. In two follow-up studies, resting metabolic rate, blood lactate and glucose and the expression of the cortisol receptor gene in the head kidney and brain were compared in fish from the two extremes of the risk-taking spectrum. Mass-specific metabolic rate was significantly higher in risk-taking than in risk-avoiding fish, while plasma lactate and glucose concentrations and expression of the cortisol receptor gene were lower. It was concluded that a behavioural syndrome based on boldness and aggression exists in C. carpio, as it does in many other animals, and that this is associated with differences in metabolic and stress physiology (down to the genomic level) similar to those described in animals with different coping strategies.

BackgroundIndividuals of many vertebrate species show different stress coping styles and these have a striking influence on how gene expression shifts in response to a variety of challenges.Principal FindingsThis is clearly illustrated by a study in which common carp displaying behavioural predictors of different coping styles (characterised by a proactive, adrenaline-based or a reactive, cortisol-based response) were subjected to inflammatory challenge and specific gene transcripts measured in individual brains. Proactive and reactive fish differed in baseline gene expression and also showed diametrically opposite responses to the challenge for 80% of the genes investigated.SignificanceIncorporating coping style as an explanatory variable can account for some the unexplained variation that is common in gene expression studies, can uncover important effects that would otherwise have passed unnoticed and greatly enhances the interpretive value of gene expression data.

No abstract

No abstract