Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Published:
Fish Physiology and Biochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleby MC (1999) Tower of Babel: variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation. Anim Welf 8:381–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Schwab A, Cowx IG (2007) Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish Fish 8:57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron RS, Kerr NL (2003) Group process, group decision, group action. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunting SW (2008) Horizontally integrated aquaculture development: exploring consensus on constraints and opportunities with a stakeholder Delphi. Aquac Int 16:153–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser D (1999) Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Appl Anim Behav Sci 65:171–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntingford FA, Adams C, Braithwaite VA, Kadri S, Pottinger TG, Sandøe P, Turnbull JF (2006) Current issues in fish welfare. J Fish Biol 68:332–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntingford FA, Adams C, Braithwaite VA, Kadri S, Pottinger TG, Sandøe P, Turnbull JF (2007) The implications of a feelings-based approach to fish welfare: a reply to Arlinghaus et al. Fish Fish 8:277–280

    Google Scholar 

  • North BP, Turnbull JF, Ellis T, Porter MJ, Migaud H, Bron J, Bromage NR (2006) The impact of stocking density on the welfare of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 255:466–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North BP, Ellis T, Bron J, Knowles TG, Turnbull JF (2008) The use of stakeholder focus groups to identify indicators for the on-farm assessment of trout welfare. In: Branson EJ (ed) Fish welfare. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 243–267

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe P, Crisp R, Holtug N (1997) Ethics. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds) Animal welfare. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp 3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe P, Christiansen SB, Appleby MC (2003) Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Anim Welf 12:469–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull JF, Bell A, Adams C, Bron J, Huntingford F (2005) Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture 243:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants of the stakeholder meeting, to many to name individually, for their valuable involvement. Further thanks to Mrs Karen Carr for assistance during the meeting, to Dr Mark James for advice during the development of the consensus-building approach and to Prof. Anders Kiessling for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. This work was funded as part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) project AW1205.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. K. Berrill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berrill, I.K., Cooper, T., MacIntyre, C.M. et al. Achieving consensus on current and future priorities for farmed fish welfare: a case study from the UK. Fish Physiol Biochem 38, 219–229 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-010-9399-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-010-9399-2

Keywords

Navigation