Achieving consensus on current and future priorities for farmed fish welfare: a case study from the UK

Abstract

The welfare of farmed fish has attracted attention in recent years, which has resulted in notable changes within the aquaculture industry. However, a lack of communication between stakeholders and opposing ethical views are perceived as barriers to achieving consensus on how to improve farmed fish welfare. To address these issues, we developed an interactive approach that could be used during stakeholder meetings to (1) improve communication between different stakeholder groups, (2) build consensus on priorities for farmed fish welfare and (3) establish mechanisms to address welfare priorities. We then applied this approach during a meeting of stakeholders to identify current and future priorities for farmed fish welfare in the UK. During the meeting in the UK, stakeholders initially identified 32 areas that they felt were in need of development for future improvements in farmed fish welfare. These were further refined via peer review and discussion to the seven most important "priority" areas. Establishing a "better understanding of what good fish welfare is" emerged as the highest priority area for farmed fish welfare. The second highest priority area was "the need for welfare monitoring and documentation systems", with mortality recording proposed as an example. The other five priority areas were "[improved understanding of] the role of genetic selection in producing fish suited to the farming environment", "a need for integration and application of behavioural and physiological measures", "the need for a more liberal regime in Europe for introducing new medicines", "a need to address the issues of training existing and new workers within the industry", and "ensuring best practise in aquaculture is followed by individual businesses". Feedback from attendees, and the meeting outputs, indicated that the approach had been successful in improving communication between stakeholders and in achieving consensus on the priorities for farmed fish welfare. The approach therefore proved highly beneficial for future improvements in fish welfare in the UK.

Mortality and fish welfare

“…To achieve the ultimate aim of improving farm animal welfare, it is recognised that robust indicators are needed to objectively quantify welfare status (North et al 2008;Berrill et al 2010). Surveillance of such indicators would enable detection of trends over time, identification of sectors (or production areas) where action is needed, and allow individual farms to compare performance to the wider industry (Defra 2006).…”

“…Farmed fish stakeholders (including individuals representing fish farmers) have also stated a need for better documentation systems for recording mortality data (Berrill et al 2010). In practical terms, the methods used to record and archive mortality data on farms can vary greatly.…”

“…As mortality is a key determinant of the profitability of any farming operation, farmers are receptive to the introduction of better systems for monitoring and analysing mortality with a view to future reduction (Soares et al 2011;Berrill et al 2010). One commercial reality is that large fish represent a greater financial investment than small fish, and hence mortality of large fish represents a greater economic loss to farmers (Savvidis et al 2007).…”

“…Education may be needed to ensure that farmers appreciate their duty of care and view mortality in terms of welfare (as well as lost income) and realise that mortality of small fish should be viewed equally to that of larger fish. During stakeholder meetings (North et al 2008;Berrill et al 2010), farmers have voiced views that they take pride in their fish husbandry skills, with high survival demonstrating such skill.…”