Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon): WelfareCheck|farm

Distribution

least concern

Information

Authors: Jenny Volstorf, Maria Filipa Castanheira
Version: C | 2.0 (2023-05-11)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.

Reviewers: N/A
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2016-11-26
Version information:

Appearance: C
Last major update: 2023-05-11

Cite as: »Volstorf, Jenny, and Maria Filipa Castanheira. 2023. Salmo salar (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. Version C | 2.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Salmo salar

LiPoCe

Criteria

Home range

Depth range

Migration

Reproduction

Aggregation

Aggression

Substrate

Stress

Malformations

Slaughter

Legend

Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

High

Medium

Low

Unclear

No findings

General remarks

Salmo salar is a salmonid from both coasts of the northern Atlantic, migrating into boardering rivers to spawn. It is the most frequently farmed fish in Europe which represents 50% of the worldwide S. salar production. Upbringing in fresh water, predominantly in flow-through tanks, lasts for 1-1.5 years after which smoltification prepares the individuals for life in seawater; on-growing in sea cages covers 50-70% of the life cycle. Where the culture site does not provide suitable conditions for sea transfer, individuals are grown out in land-based freshwater RAS to harvestable size. Individuals are slaughtered before reaching maturity. Adults destined to become broodstock are transferred back to freshwater about 2 months before spawning. The underlying migration habit is one of the factors very hard to accommodate in captivity, as it is unclear whether it is sufficient to provide the species with the conditions of the respective life stages or whether it needs to experience the transition. Other factors responsible for the low FishEthoScore are substrate needs as well as high levels of aggression, stress, and deformations under farming conditions. Avoiding manipulation to induce spawning, providing substrate, and applying the high-standard slaughter methods are ways towards improving welfare for S. salar in captivity.

Note: LARVAE are called ALEVINS; JUVENILES are called PARR in fresh water and SMOLTS after bodily modification to sustain seawater; SPAWNERS are called GRILSE at first spawning and KELTS thereafter (very rare). We added “ADULTS” for the case when it is not clear whether SMOLTS or GRILSE are meant. As individuals are usually slaughtered before reaching maturity, “ADULTS” in farms refers to ADULTS to become SPAWNERS, i.e., during holding before/between the spawning event(s).

1 Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the missing wild information at sea does not allow a comparison with farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: mainly within 20 m from redd 1. FRY: most moved 1-5 m from redd 2.
FARM: ALEVINS: vertical trays with variable size frames: 0.6 m (Aquatec.com). FRY: tanks: 1-10 m ∅ 3; raceways 3.
LAB: does not apply.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: mainly 37.5-50 m², some 300+ m² 4, mainly <5 m 5 6, ≤23 m 6. Non-ANADROMOUS strain: 95% range 3-44,408 m² 7. SMOLTS: no data found yet.
FARM: PARR: most frequently flow-through freshwater tanks, but also flow-through freshwater raceways, recirculated freshwater tanks or raceways, freshwater cages 3. Tanks: 2-15 m ∅ 3, 14-20 m ∅ for growth to harvestable size 8; freshwater cages: 9-15 m², 10-25 m ∅ 3. SMOLTS: sea cages: 576 m² (24 x 24 m) or 100 m ∅ 9, 125 m² (15 x 15 m) 10, 100 m² (10 x 10 m) 11, first 9-20 m², then 81-400 m² 3, 160 m ∅ 3, 40-50 m ∅ 12.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: sea cages: 576 m² (24 x 24 m) or 100 m ∅ 9, 125 m² (15 x 15 m) 10, 100 m² (10 x 10 m) 11, first 9-20 m², then 81-400 m² 3, 160 m ∅ 3, 40-50 m ∅ 12; tanks: 14-20 m ∅ for growth to harvestable size 8.
LAB: does not apply.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: redd: ellipsoid with 0.5-6 x 0.5-4 m at maximum points 13. Move 0.3-2.1 km after spawning 14.
FARM: holding in sea cages or tanks, moved to freshwater tanks ca 2 months before spawning 9 3. Tanks: 10-25 m ∅ 3.
LAB: does not apply.

2 Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as some trays and tanks do not cover the whole range in the wild. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other trays and tanks cover the range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in GRILSE and KELTS. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as farm information for GRILSE and KELTS is missing.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: ALEVINS: in gravel, for spawning depth ➝ GRILSE and KELTS. FRY: mainly 0.2-0.4 m 15 16 17 5, range 0.06-0.5 m 15, in artificial stream: mainly <0.2 m 18.
FARM: ALEVINS: hatchery trays and tanks: 0.2-0.5 m 19, trays: 0.1 m 3. FRY: tanks: 1.5 m 3.
LAB: does not apply.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: mainly 0.2-0.4 m 15 16 17 6, ≤0.6 m 17 6, range 0.06-0.5 m 15, range 0.2-1 m 17, in artificial stream: 0.05-0.5 m 18. Non-ANADROMOUS strain: mostly <0.6 m, sometimes >1 m 7. SMOLTS: at sea, caught in trawl 0-10 m, actual depth use might be shallower 20, hatchery-reared IND released in Fjord: mainly 1-3 m, <0.5 m at night, irregular dives ≤6.5 m during the day 21.
FARM: PARR: tanks: 0.3-0.9 m until free swimming, then ≤3 m 3, 3.5-4.5 m for growth to harvestable size 8; freshwater cages: 3-5 m 3. SMOLTS: sea cages: 15-18 m 9 10 11 22, 5-50 m 3 12. In 15 m sea cage, IND stayed mostly in 0-3 m where temperature was the warmest 11. Learned to use full depth when cage was submerged 11. Depth use increased during daytime and for thermoregulation 22.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: sea cages: 15-18 m 9 10 11 22, 5-50 m 12. In 15 m sea cage, IND stayed mostly in 0-3 m where temperature was the warmest 11. Learned to use full depth when cage was submerged 11. Depth use increased during daytime and for thermoregulation 22. Tanks: 3.5-4.5 m for growth to harvestable size 8.
LAB: does not apply.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: spawn at mean 0.2-0.5 m 23 13 24 25. KELTS: during migration back to the sea mostly within 1 m, occasionally to 3 m, seldomly to 15 m 26, mean 2 m, 94% within 5 m, max 83 m 27.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: does not apply.

3 Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as both strains undertake more or less extensive migrations, and we cannot be sure that providing each age class with their respective environmental conditions will satisfy their urge to migrate or whether they need to experience the transition. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the non-ANADROMOUS strain at least does not migrate between sea- and fresh water and the range in captivity potentially overlaps with the migration distance (although unknown). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Mostly ANADROMOUS 28 29 30 31 32, sometimes also non-ANADROMOUS 33 34 35 7.

ANADROMOUS strain:

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: in natal rivers for ≤5 years 36 37. 0.1-26 °C 15, 10-18.5 °C at emergence from gravel 2, fresh water 15 2.
FARM: ALEVINS: near darkness until first feeding, 8 °C, fresh water 3. Incubators: tendency of increasing cortisol with increasing artificial light at night (0.1-8 lux), but depends on the analysis method applied 38. FRY: 12 °C at first feeding, fresh water 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: in natal rivers for ≤5 years 36 37 31 39 40. Some older IND migrate into lakes 34 or smaller tributaries 36. 0.1-26 °C 15 36, 14-23 °C 40, fresh water 15 36 40. SMOLTS: after seawater adaptation, migrate along freshwater rivers to the sea 29 32. At sea, based on distribution 20, estimated 0-24 h PHOTOPERIOD. At sea, 6-12 °C, 34-35.3 ppt 20.
FARM: PARR: tanks: fresh water, 0.5-2.5 body lengths/s current 3. SMOLTS: sea cages: artificial light by submerged lamps in winter is supposed to increase day length and therefore growth and prevent early maturation 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: SMOLTS: cages: stressed by blue light 41.

ADULTS:

WILD: some mature in rivers as PARR 42 (10-57%) 39 (12.4%) 43 or SMOLTS 43, most mature at sea 28 39 and stay for ≤3 years 30 31 39 44. At sea, based on distribution 20, estimated 0-24 h PHOTOPERIOD. At sea, 6-12 °C, 34-35.3 ppt 20.
FARM: sea cages: artificial light by submerged lamps in winter is supposed to increase day length and therefore growth and prevent early maturation 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: return from sea to natal river to spawn 14 30 31. Most die of exhaustion after spawning 14 45. Some (10%) 33 migrated as KELTS back to the sea 26 27 and even fewer migrated upriver again for another spawning event 26.
FARM: tanks: <8 ppt 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1.
LAB: no data found yet.

non-ANADROMOUS strain:

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: in small ponds, fresh water 33 or tributaries 46.
FARM: ALEVINS: near darkness until first feeding, 8 °C, fresh water 3. Incubators: tendency of increasing cortisol with increasing artificial light at night (0.1-8 lux), but depends on the analysis method applied 38. FRY: 12 °C at first feeding, fresh water 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

PARR:

WILD: in small ponds, fresh water 33 or streams 34 7. Some older IND migrate into lakes until maturation 34 46.
FARM: tanks: fresh water, 0.5-2.5 body lengths/s current 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: in small ponds, fresh water 33 or migrating from lakes back into streams 34.
FARM: ➝ PARR.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: spawn in tributaries 46.
FARM: tanks: <8 ppt 3. For details of holding systems ➝ F1.
LAB: no data found yet.

4 Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.

What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of these circumstances?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species is manipulated (wild breeders, separation by sex, hormonal/photoperiod/temperature manipulation, stripping). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as omitting hormonal manipulation and stripping is easily imaginable but needs verification for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY: does not apply.

PARR and SMOLTS: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: mature at average 3.2-6.3 years 39 or 2.2-7.8 years 46 depending on latitude; dwarf landlocked females spawned at 3+ years 33, range of landlocked strains 2.0-6.5 years 46. Spawn October-January 37. Dominant male courts female by quivering close to her, nudging her mid body, crossing over the female's tail 47↶48 49↶48 50↶48. For nest building ➝ F3.
FARM: IND from the wild may be added to the captive breeder population 3. Spawn after 2 years in seawater 3. After being moved from sea cages to freshwater tanks shortly before spawning, kept in mixed-sex groups 3. Sometimes hormone manipulation to synchronise spawning 3. PHOTOPERIOD and temperature manipulation to simulate spawning conditions that goes beyond shifting of natural cycle 3. Stripping of eggs and milt 9 19 3, sometimes surgically under lethal anaesthesia 3.
LAB: dominance rank correlated with body weight, fork length, and kype size 51. Dominant males approached and mated with females more frequently than subordinate ones 51.

5 Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as – even in the absence of density data in the wild – we may conclude from studies in farms that densities in some tanks are potentially stress inducing. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as densities around 20 kg/m³ in cages increase welfare. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information for SMOLTS, GRILSE, and KELTS is missing

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: live solitary after emerging from the gravel, but remain in the same areas as siblings 2 52, in artificial stream: 1.1-306 IND/100 m² 18.
FARM: 50+ kg/m³ 9.
LAB: no data found yet

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: live solitary or in small groups 53, in artificial stream: 9.5-87.6 IND/100 m² 18. SMOLTS: migrate downstream in schools 53 during the day, individually at night 54.
FARM: PARR: 40-70 kg/m³ for growth to harvestable size 8. Tanks: lower glucose levels in PARR at 21 and 43 kg/m³ than 65 and 86 kg/m³ before transfer to seawater, thereafter decrease and no differences in sea cages in SMOLTS 55. Decreasing condition factor at 21-86 kg/m³, no difference in PARR before transfer to seawater, then better condition factor at 21 kg/m³ than 86 kg/m³ in sea cages in SMOLTS, leveling out over time 55. After 12 weeks in seawater cages, no differences in growth, condition factor, glucose in SMOLTS 55. SMOLTS: sea cages: usually 20 kg/m³ 9, 50 IND/m³ 3; 15-25 kg/m³ 3. Cages: decreasing welfare score with increasing density from 22 kg/m³ on 56. In 14 m deep cage, preference for 16-18 °C during the day and surface layer during the night resulted in higher density in the respective water layers and thus lower oxygen, even more so at 35 kg/m³ than 15 kg/m³ 57. In 15 m deep cage, at 0.7 kg/m³, separated into 2 schools at different depths 11.
LAB: PARR: higher welfare at 25 kg/m³ than 15 and 35 kg/m³ 58. Lower weight at 8 kg/m³ than 30 kg/m³ 59.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: sea cages: usually 20 kg/m³ 9, 50 IND/m³ 3; 15-25 kg/m³ 3. Cages: decreasing welfare score with increasing density from 22 kg/m³ on 56. In 14 m deep cage, preference for 16-18 °C during the day and surface layer during the night resulted in higher density in the respective water layers and thus lower oxygen, even more so at 35 kg/m³ than 15 kg/m³ 57. In 15 m deep cage, at 0.7 kg/m³, separated into 2 schools at different depths 11.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: 25 kg/m³ 60↶55.
LAB: no data found yet.

6 Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.

What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as – even in the absence of aggression data in the wild – we may conclude from studies in labs that some densities and current velocities potentially induce aggression. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as innovations to decrease aggression by decreasing density or increasing current velocity need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: aggressive and territorial after emerging from the gravel 2.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: food competition in groups of 2 61 62 and groups of 10 52. Pools: increasing aggression with increasing density (6 ➝ 18 IND/m²) 63.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: no data found yet. SMOLTS: decreased agonistic and territorial behaviour and increased schooling during downstream migration 64↶35 65↶35, probably induced by changing environmental conditions like increases in water velocity 53↶35.
FARM: no data found yet
LAB: PARR: tanks: aggressive in groups of 20, more so in IND with high compared to low standard metabolic rate 66. More fin biting at 30 than 8 kg/m³, but more overall aggression (though not as severe) at 8 kg/m³ 67. Tanks: aggressive in groups of 10 at 10 kg/m³, more so in IND with restricted feeding ration 68. SMOLTS: raceways (33 ppt): little aggression at current velocity of 0.8 and 1.5 body lenghts/s, higher frequency at 0.2 body lengths/s, but higher frequency of caudal fin erosion at fast than slow velocity 69.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: raceways (33 ppt): little aggression at current velocity of 0.8 and 1.5 body lenghts/s, higher frequency at 0.2 body lengths/s, but higher frequency of caudal fin erosion at fast than slow velocity 69.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: ANADROMOUS males chase away mature PARR 35.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: male competition for females 51. Females were less aggressive towards males with higher adipose fin index indicating mate choice 51.

7 Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species uses substrate, but many or all farming facilities for each age class are devoid of it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions a) given hatching substrate for ALEVINS as well as cover and enrichment for PARR in tanks, b) as improvements for GRILSE and KELTS are unlikely, and c) as innovations for enrichment need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as innovations for cages are missing, for example.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: for redds ➝ GRILSE and KELTS. Decreasing survival of pre-eyed and eyed stages with increasing percentage of silts and clays (<0.06 mm) probably by restricting oxygen consumption 70.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: ALEVINS: in gravel 13 31 1. FRY: gravel 17 1, pebbles 5, cobbles 5, “home stone” (mean 6.6 cm in summer, mean 17.8 cm in autumn) over which they hovered in summer, under which they hid in autumn 15. Hid behind rocks or in gravel 2, preferred complete over partial or no cover 5.
FARM: ALEVINS: trays or troughs with artificial hatching substrate 9 (stones, gravel, astroturf, biomatting, etc.) until yolk sac absorption 19 3. Astroturf increased growth compared to flat-screen rearing 71. FRY: tanks 3, probably without substrate.
LAB: FRY reared in tanks with plastic plants and pipes did not differ in exploratory behaviour of a maze from non-enriched IND 72.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: gravel and cobbles 17. Younger IND found in rivers with cobbles and pebbles, older IND with cobbles to boulders 36. “Home stone” (mean 6.4-6.7 cm in summer, mean 20.9-24.4 cm in autumn) over which they hovered in summer, under which they hid in autumn 15. Habitat preference not only determined by substrate but by complex interaction between hydro-geomorphologic, ecologic, and dynamic factors 40. Non-ANADROMOUS strain: mostly gravel to boulder, sometimes fine substrate or bedrock 7. SMOLTS: based on depth (➝ F2), probably PELAGIC at sea.
FARM: PARR: tanks, often outdoor and thus requiring protection from predators 3, probably without substrate. Tanks: lower stress and higher growth in FRY-SMOLTS with 67% cover 73. Lower mortality after disease outbreak in enriched (variable water inflow, gravel, shelters) than non-enriched tanks 74 75. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: PARR: rearing in enriched tanks (pebbles, cobbles, vertically-floating plastic plants) increased neural plasticity and spatial learning (fewer mistakes in maze, faster exit) than in non-enriched tanks 76. Tanks: tendency of better growth with vertically-suspended PVC pipes 77. IND reared in tanks with plastic plants and pipes explored maze more readily than non-enriched IND 72.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: female builds redd 13 24 in gravel substrate 24 with 2.3-12.5% 13 24, ≤29.2% fine material <1 mm 70.
FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ F1, for stripping ➝ F4.
LAB: no data found yet.

8 Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).

What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some innovations to reduce stress need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: FRY: stressed by handling and conﬁnement 38. Incubators: water cortisol levels can be used as a non-invasive method to measure stress 38. For stress and artificial light at night➝ F5.
LAB: stressed by confinement 62.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: PARR: tanks: size-graded 2-5 times; (freshwater and sea) cages: usually size-graded once 3. SMOLTS: after smoltification, transport to sea by trucks or wellboats 9 3 12. Stressed by transport, especially loading (reducing water level, crowding, pumping) 78. Stressed by crowding and confinement 79. Occasional submergence of cages may counteract detrimental surface conditions (low oxygen levels, storms, ice, algal bloom, sea lice larvae) 11. Acoustic delicing was effective and stressless 80 and is potentially less stressful than other methods, which involve removal from water and handling. For slaughter, crowded in cages, pumped, and slaughtered on site or transported to slaughtering plant 9 81 by wellboat 81. For stress and a) aggregation ➝ F6, b) cover ➝ F3.
LAB: PARR: stressed by repeated chasing, crowding or draining the tank 82. Husbandry disturbance with no effect at 25 kg/m³, positive effect at 15 and 35 kg/m³, probably due to suppressing direct aggression 58. Stressed by confinement – more so if subordinate 83. Stressed by unpredictable chronic events (chasing, netting, sudden temperature increase or decrease, noise, darkness+flash light, hypoxia, emptying the tank) 84. SMOLTS: cages: stressed by infrasound and surface disturbance 41. Increased jumping behaviour after cage submergence could be used as a stress-free delousing method from sea lice when jumping individuals break water surface with floating chemical therapeutant infused in oil 85. For stress and light ➝ F5.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: after smoltification, transport to sea by trucks or wellboats 9 3 12. Stressed by transport, especially loading (reducing water level, crowding, pumping) 78. Stressed by crowding and confinement 79. Occasional submergence of cages may counteract detrimental surface conditions (low oxygen levels, storms, ice, algal bloom, sea lice larvae) 11. Acoustic delicing was effective and stressless 80 and is potentially less stressful than other methods, which involve removal from water and handling. For slaughter, crowded in cages, pumped, and slaughtered on site or transported to slaughtering plant 9 81 by wellboat 81. For stress and a) aggregation ➝ F6, b) cover ➝ F3.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

9 Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as malformation rates exceed 10%. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some malformations result from conditions that may be changed (handling, heritability). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as improvement of the situation by adjusting conditions needs more proof.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: fragile at 8-220 degree days during which handling may have repercussions 3.
LAB: no data found yet.

ALEVINS and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: PARR: higher frequency of otoliths containing vaterite and therefore impairing hearing in hatchery-reared than wild-caught IND (41% versus 10%) 86.
FARM: vertebral deformities in 2.3-21.5% coinciding with reduced growth and probably due to heritability 87. Skeletal deformities in 12% of which some do not progress after seawater transfer but instead transform from fused vertebrae into one non-deformed vertebra 88.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: ➝ PARR and SMOLTS.
LAB: no data found yet.

GRILSE and KELTS:

WILD: vertebral deformities in 43% – mostly minor deviations of vertebra no 2 (compared to more severe deformities in farms) as well as fused vertebrae resulting in more stable large vertebra 44.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

10 Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.

What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as percussive stunning or electrical stunning, each followed by exsanguination, induce unconsciousness fast, kill while still unconscious, and are verified for the farming context. Our conclusions are based on a medium amount of evidence, as a reproducible set of rules for electrical stunning is missing.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY: does not apply.

PARR and SMOLTS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: common slaughter method: asphyxia in air, carbon dioxide, hypothermia in ice slurry, each followed by exsanguination 81. Higher plasma cortisol levels with live chilling than control 79. High-standard slaughter method: percussive stunning 9 with a non-penetrating bolt 12 followed by exsanguination 81 12 and immersion in ice water 9, electrical stunning followed by exsanguination 81 12.
LAB: shorter time to loss of visual evoked response with percussive stunning or spiking (0-1 min) than with exsanguination by gill-cutting (2.5-7.5 min) or carbon dioxide narcosis (3-9 min), also vigorous movements and escape attempts with carbon dioxide 89.

ADULTS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: ➝ PARR and SMOLTS.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: females slaughtered after one spawning, males may be used more often 3. Isoeugenol followed by exsanguination 81.
LAB: no data found yet.

Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.

What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 90, fully domesticated. Cultured since 19^th century 9.

Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.

To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes:

WILD: carnivorous 91 92 93.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: SMOLTS: fish oil may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 94. Fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources parallel to fish oil being mostly* replaced 95.

^{* partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%}

Side note: Commercial relevance

How much is this species farmed annually?

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals
ALEVINS = larvae until the end of yolk sac absorption
ANADROMOUS = migrating from the sea into fresh water to spawn
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 90
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
GRILSE = adults returning from sea to home river to spawn
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
KELTS = adults surviving spawning
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PARR = juvenile stage in rivers
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
RAS = Recirculating Aquaculture System - almost completely closed system using filters to clean and recirculate water with the aim of reducing water input and with the advantage of enabling close control of environmental parameters to maintain high water quality
SMOLTS = juvenile stage migrating to the sea
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 García De Leániz, C., N. Fraser, and F. A. Huntingford. 2000. Variability in performance in wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fry from a single redd. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7: 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00223.x.
2 Gustafson-Greenwood, Karla I., and John R. Moring. 1990. Territory size and distribution of newly-emerged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Hydrobiologia 206: 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018638.
3 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2008. Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed Atlantic salmon - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA Journal 6: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.736.
4 Hesthagen, T. 1990. Home range of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta, in a Norwegian stream. Freshwater Biology 24: 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00307.x.
5 Girard, Isabelle L, James W.A Grant, and Stefán Ó Steingrímsson. 2004. Foraging, growth, and loss rate of young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in relation to habitat use in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 2339–2349. https://doi.org/10.1139/f04-216.
6 Roussel, Jean-Marc, Richard A. Cunjak, Robert Newbury, Daniel Caissie, and Alexander Haro. 2004. Movements and habitat use by PIT-tagged Atlantic salmon parr in early winter: the influence of anchor ice. Freshwater Biology 49: 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01246.x.
7 Davidsen, Jan G., Linda Eikås, Richard D. Hedger, Eva B. Thorstad, Lars Rønning, Aslak D. Sjursen, Ole K. Berg, Gunnbjørn Bremset, Sten Karlsson, and Line E. Sundt-Hansen. 2020. Migration and habitat use of the landlocked riverine Atlantic salmon Salmo salar småblank. Hydrobiologia 847: 2295–2306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04254-6.
8 Summerfelt, Steven T., Frode Mathisen, Astrid Buran Holan, and Bendik Fyhn Terjesen. 2016. Survey of large circular and octagonal tanks operated at Norwegian commercial smolt and post-smolt sites. Aquacultural Engineering 74: 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2016.07.004.
9 Jones, M. 2004. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Salmo salar. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
10 Cubitt, K Fiona, Svante Winberg, Felicity A Huntingford, Sunil Kadri, Vivian O Crampton, and Øyvind Øverli. 2008. Social hierarchies, growth and brain serotonin metabolism in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) kept under commercial rearing conditions. Physiology & behavior 94: 529–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.009.
11 Dempster, Tim, Jon-Erik Juell, Jan Erik Fosseidengen, Arne Fredheim, and Pål Lader. 2008. Behaviour and growth of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) subjected to short-term submergence in commercial scale sea-cages. Aquaculture 276: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.018.
12 Noble, Chris, Kristine Gismervik, Martin Haugmo Iversen, Jelena Kolarevic, Jonatan Nilsson, Lars Helge Stien, and James F Turnbull. 2018. Welfare indicators for farmed Atlantic salmon: Tools for assessing fish welfare.
13 Crisp, D. T., and P. A. Carling. 1989. Observations on siting, dimensions and structure of salmonid redds. Journal of Fish Biology 34: 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1989.tb02962.x.
14 Baglinière, J. L., G. Maisse, and A. Nihouarn. 1990. Migratory and reproductive behaviour of female adult Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in a spawning stream. Journal of Fish Biology 36: 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb03553.x.
15 Rimmer, D. M., U. Paim, and R. L. Saunders. 1984. Changes in the Selection of Microhabitat by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) at the Summer–Autumn Transition in a Small River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1139/f84-056.
16 Degraaf, D. A., and L. H. Bain. 1986. Habitat Use by and Preferences of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon in Two Newfoundland Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1986)115<671:HUBAPO>2.0.CO;2.
17 Morantz, D. L., R. K. Sweeney, C. S. Shirvell, and D. A. Longard. 1987. Selection of Microhabitat in Summer by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1139/f87-015.
18 Kennedy, G. J. A., and C. D. Strange. 1982. The distribution of salmonids in upland streams in relation to depth and gradient. Journal of Fish Biology 20: 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1982.tb03956.x.
19 Stead, Selina M., and Lindsay Laird. 2002. The Handbook of Salmon Farming. Food Sciences. London: Springer-Verlag.
20 Holm, M., J. Chr Holst, and L. P. Hansen. 2000. Spatial and temporal distribution of post-smolts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57: 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0700.
21 Davidsen, J. G., N. Plantalech Manel-la, F. Økland, O. H. Diserud, E. B. Thorstad, B. Finstad, R. Sivertsgård, R. S. McKinley, and A. H. Rikardsen. 2008. Changes in swimming depths of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar post-smolts relative to light intensity. Journal of Fish Biology 73: 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02004.x.
22 Johansson, David, Kari Ruohonen, Jon-Erik Juell, and Frode Oppedal. 2009. Swimming depth and thermal history of individual Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in production cages under different ambient temperature conditions. Aquaculture 290: 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.02.022.
23 Beland, Kenneth F., Richard M. Jordan, and Alfred L. Meister. 1982. Water Depth and Velocity Preferences of Spawning Atlantic Salmon in Maine Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1982)2<11:WDAVPO>2.0.CO;2.
24 Moir, H. J., C. Soulsby, and A. Youngson. 1998. Hydraulic and sedimentary characteristics of habitat utilized by Atlantic salmon for spawning in the Girnock Burn, Scotland. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.00105.x.
25 Soulsby, C., A. F. Youngson, H. J. Moir, and I. A. Malcolm. 2001. Fine sediment influence on salmonid spawning habitat in a lowland agricultural stream: a preliminary assessment. Science of The Total Environment 265: 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00672-0.
26 Hubley, P. Bradford, Peter G. Amiro, A. Jamie F. Gibson, Gilles L. Lacroix, and Anna M. Redden. 2008. Survival and behaviour of migrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) kelts in river, estuarine, and coastal habitat. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 65: 1626–1634. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn129.
27 Halttunen, Elina, Audun H. Rikardsen, Jan G. Davidsen, Eva B. Thorstad, and J. Brian Dempson. 2009. Survival, Migration Speed and Swimming Depth of Atlantic Salmon Kelts During Sea Entry and Fjord Migration. In Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices, ed. Jennifer L. Nielsen, Haritz Arrizabalaga, Nuno Fragoso, Alistair Hobday, Molly Lutcavage, and John Sibert, 35–49. Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9. Springer Netherlands.
28 Thorpe, J. E. 1994. Reproductive strategies in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture Research 25: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1994.tb00668.x.
29 Moore, A., E. C. E. Potter, N. J. Milner, and S. Bamber. 1995. The migratory behaviour of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in the estuary of the River Conwy, North Wales. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 1923–1935. https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-784.
30 Armstrong, John D, James WA Grant, Harvey L Forsgren, Kurt D Fausch, Richard M DeGraaf, Ian A Fleming, Terry D Prowse, and Isaac J Schlosser. 1998. The application of science to the management of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): integration across scales. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1139/d98-014.
31 Cunjak, R. A., and J. Therrien. 1998. Inter-stage survival of wild juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.00094.x.
32 Hedger, Richard D., Francois Martin, Daniel Hatin, Francois Caron, F. G. Whoriskey, and Julian J. Dodson. 2008. Active migration of wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolt through a coastal embayment. ResearchGate 355: 235–246. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07239.
33 Sutterlin, A. M., and D. MacLean. 1984. Age at First Maturity and the Early Expression of Oocyte Recruitment Processes in Two Forms of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Their Hybrids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 1139–1149. https://doi.org/10.1139/f84-135.
34 Hutchings, Jeffrey A. 1986. Lakeward Migrations by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-090.
35 McCormick, Stephen D, Lars P Hansen, Thomas P Quinn, and Richard L Saunders. 1998. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1139/d98-011.
36 Erkinaro, J. 1995. The age structure and distribution of Atlantic salmon parr, Salmo salar L., in small tributaries and main stems of the subarctic River Teno, northern Finland. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 4: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.1995.tb00117.x.
37 Carr, J. W., J. M. Anderson, F. G. Whoriskey, and T. Dilworth. 1997. The occurrence and spawning of cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a Canadian river. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 54: 1064–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-3139(97)80010-0.
38 Newman, Rhian C., Tim Ellis, Phil I. Davison, Mark J. Ives, Rob J. Thomas, Sian W. Griffiths, and William D. Riley. 2015. Using novel methodologies to examine the impact of artificial light at night on the cortisol stress response in dispersing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fry. Conservation Physiology 3: cov051. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cov051.
39 Hutchings, Jeffrey A, and Megan EB Jones. 1998. Life history variation and growth rate thresholds for maturity in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1139/d98-004.
40 Guay, J C, D Boisclair, M Leclerc, and M Lapointe. 2003. Assessment of the transferability of biological habitat models for Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1398–1408. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-120.
41 Bui, Samantha, Frode Oppedal, Øyvind J. Korsøen, Damien Sonny, and Tim Dempster. 2013. Group Behavioural Responses of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) to Light, Infrasound and Sound Stimuli. Edited by Josep V. Planas. PLoS ONE 8: e63696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063696.
42 Myers, Ransom A., Jeffrey A. Hutchings, and R. John Gibson. 1986. Variation in Male Parr Maturation Within and Among Populations of Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 1242–1248. https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-154.
43 Metcalfe, Neil B. 1998. The interaction between behavior and physiology in determining life history patterns in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1139/d98-005.
44 Sambraus, F., K. A. Glover, T. Hansen, T. W. K. Fraser, M. F. Solberg, and P. G. Fjelldal. 2014. Vertebra deformities in wild Atlantic salmon caught in the Figgjo River, southwest Norway. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 30: 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12517.
45 Lindberg, Dan-Erik. 2011. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) migration behavior and preferences in smolts, spawners and kelts. Report 14. Umeå Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies.
46 Hutchings, Jeffrey A., William R. Ardren, Bjørn T. Barlaup, Eva Bergman, Keith D. Clarke, Larry A. Greenberg, Colin Lake, et al. 2019. Life-history variability and conservation status of landlocked Atlantic salmon: an overview. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76: 1697–1708. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0413.
47 Jones, J. W. 1959. The salmon. London: Collins.
48 Fleming, Ian A., and Sigurd Einum. 2010. Reproductive Ecology: A Tale of Two Sexes. In Atlantic Salmon Ecology, 33–65. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327755.ch2.
49 De Gaudemar, Benoit, and Edward Beall. 1999. Reproductive behavioural sequences of single pairs of Atlantic salmon in an experimental stream. Animal Behaviour 57: 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1104.
50 De Gaudemar, B., J. M. Bonzom, and E. Beall. 2000. Effects of courtship and relative mate size on sexual motivation in Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 57: 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02188.x.
51 Järvi, Torbjörn. 1990. The Effects of Male Dominance, Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Female Mate Choice on the Mating Success of Male Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar. Ethology 84: 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00789.x.
52 Dill, Peter A. 1977. Development of behaviour in alevins of atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and rainbow trout, S. gairdneri. Animal Behaviour 25, Part 1: 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(77)90073-2.
53 Gibson, R. J. 1983. Water velocity as a factor in the change from aggressive to schooling behaviour and subsequent migration of Atlantic salmon smolt (Salmo salar). Le Naturaliste canadien.
54 Riley, W. D., A. T. Ibbotson, D. L. Maxwell, P. I. Davison, W. R. C. Beaumont, and M. J. Ives. 2014. Development of schooling behaviour during the downstream migration of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts in a chalk stream. Journal of Fish Biology 85: 1042–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12457.
55 Hosfeld, Camilla Diesen, Jannicke Hammer, Sigurd O. Handeland, Sveinung Fivelstad, and Sigurd O. Stefansson. 2009. Effects of fish density on growth and smoltification in intensive production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 294: 236–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.06.003.
56 Turnbull, James, Alisdair Bell, Colin Adams, James Bron, and Felicity Huntingford. 2005. Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture 243: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.022.
57 Johansson, David, Kari Ruohonen, Anders Kiessling, Frode Oppedal, Jan-Erik Stiansen, Mark Kelly, and Jon-Erik Juell. 2006. Effect of environmental factors on swimming depth preferences of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and temporal and spatial variations in oxygen levels in sea cages at a fjord site. Aquaculture 254: 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.10.029.
58 Adams, C E, J F Turnbull, A Bell, J E Bron, and F A Huntingford. 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. https://doi.org/10.1139/f07-018.
59 Cañon Jones, Hernán Alberto, Chris Noble, Børge Damsgård, and Gareth P. Pearce. 2011. Social network analysis of the behavioural interactions that influence the development of fin damage in Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) held at different stocking densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133: 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.005.
60 Anon. 2004. Forskrift om drift av akvakulturanlegg (akvakulturdriftsforskriften). Fastsatt av Fiskeri- og kystdepartementet 22. desember 2004 med hjemmel i lov 14. juni 1985 nr. 68 om oppdrett av fisk, skalldyr, lov 19. desember 2003 nr. 124 om matproduksjon og mattrygghet og lov 20. desember 1974 nr. 73 om dyrevern.
61 Metcalfe, N. B., and J. E. Thorpe. 1992. Early predictors of life-history events: the link between first feeding date, dominance and seaward migration in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Biology 41: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb03871.x.
62 Vaz-Serrano, J., M. L. Ruiz-Gomez, H. M. Gjoen, P. V. Skov, F. A. Huntingford, Øyvind Øverli, and E. Höglund. 2011. Consistent boldness behaviour in early emerging fry of domesticated Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Decoupling of behavioural and physiological traits of the proactive stress coping style. Physiology & Behavior 103: 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.02.025.
63 Blanchet, S., J. J. Dodson, and S. Brosse. 2006. Influence of habitat structure and fish density on Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. territorial behaviour. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.00970.x.
64 Hoar, W. S. 1988. 4 The Physiology of Smolting Salmonids. In Fish Physiology, ed. W. S. Hoar and D. J. Randall, 11:275–343. The Physiology of Developing Fish. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1546-5098(08)60216-2.
65 Iwata, Munehico. 1995. Downstream migratory behavior of salmonids and its relationship with cortisol and thyroid hormones: A review. Aquaculture 135. Application of Endocrinology to Pacific Rim Aquaculture: 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(95)01000-9.
66 Cutts, C. J., N. B. Betcalfe, and A. C. Caylor. 1998. Aggression and growth depression in juvenile Atlantic salmon: the consequences of individual variation in standard metabolic rate. Journal of Fish Biology 52: 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb00601.x.
67 Cañon Jones, Alberto Hernán. 2011. Social network analysis of behavioural interactions influencing the development of fin damage in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Thesis, University of Cambridge.
68 Cañon Jones, Hernán Alberto Cañon, Chris Noble, Børge Damsgård, and Gareth P. Pearce. 2017. Evaluating the effects of a short-term feed restriction period on the behavior and welfare of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, parr using social network analysis and fin damage. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 48: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12322.
69 Solstorm, Frida, David Solstorm, Frode Oppedal, Rolf Erik Olsen, Lars Helge Stien, and Anders Fernö. 2016. Not too slow, not too fast: water currents affect group structure, aggression and welfare in post-smolt Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. 1869-215X. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00178.
70 Julien, H. P., and N. E. Bergeron. 2006. Effect of Fine Sediment Infiltration During the Incubation Period on Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Embryo Survival. Hydrobiologia 563: 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-1035-2.
71 Hansen, Tom, and Krisna R. Torrissen. 1985. Artificial hatching substrate and different times of transfer to first feeding: Effect on growth and protease activities of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 48: 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(85)90103-6.
72 Alnes, Ingeborg Bjerkvik, Knut Helge Jensen, Arne Skorping, and Anne Gro Vea Salvanes. 2021. Ontogenetic Change in Behavioral Responses to Structural Enrichment From Fry to Parr in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8: 638888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.638888.
73 Pickering, A. D., R. Griffiths, and T. G. Pottinger. 1987. A comparison of the effects of overhead cover on the growth, survival and haematology of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., brown trout, Salmo trutta L., and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. Aquaculture 66: 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(87)90226-2.
74 Karvonen, Anssi, Mariella Aalto-Araneda, Anna-Maija Virtala, Raine Kortet, Perttu Koski, and Pekka Hyva. 2016. Enriched rearing environment and wild genetic background can enhance survival and disease resistance of salmonid fishes during parasite epidemics. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 213–221.
75 Räihä, Ville, Lotta‐Riina Sundberg, Roghaieh Ashrafi, Pekka Hyvärinen, and Anssi Karvonen. 2019. Rearing background and exposure environment together explain higher survival of aquaculture fish during a bacterial outbreak. Edited by Nessa O’Connor. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: 1741–1750. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13393.
76 Salvanes, Anne Gro Vea, Olav Moberg, Lars O. E. Ebbesson, Tom Ole Nilsen, Knut Helge Jensen, and Victoria A. Braithwaite. 2013. Environmental enrichment promotes neural plasticity and cognitive ability in fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280: 20131331. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1331.
77 Jones, Misty D., Eric Krebs, Nathan Huysman, Jill M. Voorhees, and Michael E. Barnes. 2019. Rearing Performance of Atlantic Salmon Grown in Circular Tanks with Vertically-Suspended Environmental Enrichment. Open Journal of Animal Sciences 09: 249–257. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2019.92021.
78 Iversen, Martin, Bengt Finstad, Robert S. McKinley, Robert A. Eliassen, Kristian Tuff Carlsen, and Tore Evjen. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.10.019.
79 Skjervold, Per Olav, Svein Olav Fjæra, Per Braarød Østby, and Olai Einen. 2001. Live-chilling and crowding stress before slaughter of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 192: 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00447-6.
80 Hjelle, Bibbi Maria Kállay, Albert Kjartan Dagbjartarson Imsland, Pablo Vigo Balseiro, and Sigurd Olav Handeland. 2022. Acoustic Delicing of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar): Fish Welfare and Salmon Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Dynamics. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 10: 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081004.
81 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Atlantic Salmon. EFSA Journal 7: 1–77. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1011.
82 McCormick, S. D, J. M Shrimpton, J. B Carey, M. F O’Dea, K. E Sloan, S Moriyama, and B. Th Björnsson. 1998. Repeated acute stress reduces growth rate of Atlantic salmon parr and alters plasma levels of growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor I and cortisol. Aquaculture 168: 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00351-2.
83 Kittilsen, Silje, Tim Ellis, Joachim Schjolden, Bjarne O. Braastad, and Øyvind Øverli. 2009. Determining stress-responsiveness in family groups of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using non-invasive measures. Aquaculture 298: 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.10.009.
84 Madaro, Angelico, Rolf E. Olsen, Tore S. Kristiansen, Lars O. E. Ebbesson, Tom O. Nilsen, Gert Flik, and Marnix Gorissen. 2015. Stress in Atlantic salmon: response to unpredictable chronic stress. Journal of Experimental Biology 218: 2538–2550. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.120535.
85 Bui, Samantha, Frode Oppedal, Øyvind J. Korsøen, and Tim Dempster. 2013. Modifying Atlantic salmon behaviour with light or feed stimuli may improve parasite control techniques. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 3: 125–133. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00055.
86 Reimer, T., T. Dempster, F. Warren-Myers, A. J. Jensen, and S. E. Swearer. 2016. High prevalence of vaterite in sagittal otoliths causes hearing impairment in farmed fish. Scientific Reports 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25249.
87 Gjerde, Bjarne, Ma. Josefa R. Pante, and Grete Baeverfjord. 2005. Genetic variation for a vertebral deformity in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 244: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.12.002.
88 Witten, P. Eckhard, Alex Obach, Ann Huysseune, and Grete Baeverfjord. 2006. Vertebrae fusion in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Development, aggravation and pathways of containment. Aquaculture 258: 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.05.005.
89 Robb, D. H. F., S. B. Wotton, J. L. McKinstry, N. K. Sørensen, S. C. Kestin, and N. K. Sørensen. 2000. Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: determination of the onset of brain failure by electroencephalography. Veterinary Record 147: 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.11.298.
90 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
91 Hendry, K, and D Cragg-Hine. 2003. Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon - IN106. 7. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology.
92 Amundsen, Per-Arne, Heidi-Marie Gabler, and Lars Sigvald Riise. 2001. Intraspecific food resource partitioning in Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) parr in a subarctic river. Aquatic Living Resources 14: 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(01)01127-5.
93 Orlov, Alexander V., Yuri V. Gerasimov, and Oleg M. Lapshin. 2006. The feeding behaviour of cultured and wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the Louvenga River, Kola Peninsula, Russia. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63: 1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.05.004.
94 Bell, J. Gordon, John McEvoy, Douglas R. Tocher, Fiona McGhee, Patrick J. Campbell, and John R. Sargent. 2001. Replacement of Fish Oil with Rapeseed Oil in Diets of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Affects Tissue Lipid Compositions and Hepatocyte Fatty Acid Metabolism. The Journal of Nutrition 131: 1535–1543.
95 Torstensen, B. E., M. Espe, M. Sanden, I. Stubhaug, R. Waagbø, G. -I. Hemre, R. Fontanillas, et al. 2008. Novel production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) protein based on combined replacement of fish meal and fish oil with plant meal and vegetable oil blends. Aquaculture 285: 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.025.

❮

❯

1 / 7

2 / 7

3 / 7

4 / 7

5 / 7

6 / 7

7 / 7

contents