Skip to main content

REVIEW article

Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Animal Behavior and Welfare
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1450087
This article is part of the Research Topic Proposing and improving science led operational welfare indicators for fish farming View all articles

Fish welfare in farms: potential, knowledge gaps and other insights from the fair-fish database

Provisionally accepted
Caroline M. Maia Caroline M. Maia 1,2,3,4*João L. Saraiva João L. Saraiva 1,5Eliane Gonçalves-de-Freitas Eliane Gonçalves-de-Freitas 4,6
  • 1 FishEthoGroup Association, Faro, Portugal
  • 2 Other, Uster, Switzerland
  • 3 Alianima (Brazil), São Paulo, Brazil
  • 4 CAUNESP - Centro de Aquicultura da UNESP, Jaboticabal, Brazil
  • 5 Centre of Marine Sciences (CCMAR/CIMAR-LA), Faro, Portugal
  • 6 Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Adequate understanding of fish behaviors and their interaction with farm-specific environments is a pivotal factor in enhancing fish welfare in aquaculture. The fair-fish database aims to provide a consistent overview of the welfare of farmed fish. This platform consolidates ethological knowledge into profiles of farmed aquatic species. Its WelfareCheck profiles are structured in criteria based on welfare indicators. Each criterion receives classifications (no findings, unclear, low, medium, high) regarding the likelihood and potential of individuals of a given species to experience good welfare in aquaculture systems, along with the associated certainty level. Such criteria encompass home range, depth range, migration patterns, reproduction, aggregation patterns, aggressive behavior, substrate needs, stress responses, malformations and slaughtering protocols. We investigated which of these 10 criteria are most relevant for the overall welfare of the individuals of a species considering their likelihood, potential, and certainty of good welfare in aquaculture. For this, we checked and recorded the high classifications in every criterion for each of these dimensions considering all the WelfareCheck profiles already published. Moreover, to investigate the knowledge gaps throughout the criteria, we also recorded classifications as unclear and no findings similarly. Then, we compared the frequencies of such classifications among these criteria. While no significant differences were found between criteria regarding the likelihood that the surveyed species may meet their basic welfare needs, criteria reproduction, slaughter practices, and substrate needs expressed a high potential for better welfare. Moreover, reproduction and migration patterns exhibited a high level of certainty regarding the available literature. Therefore, we conclude that improving reproduction of farmed aquatic individuals considering their natural needs and behavior may be a useful and reliable tool for improving welfare. We also found a low certainty regarding information on aggression, and an absence or conflicting data about home range, aggregations, stress and malformations, therefore indicating that there is an urgent need for research on these criteria, which are fundamental for more accurate assessments and recommendations regarding the welfare of farmed aquatic individuals.

    Keywords: Aquaculture, Farmed fish, Fish Behavior, Reproduction, Welfare criteria

    Received: 16 Jun 2024; Accepted: 09 Sep 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Maia, Saraiva and Gonçalves-de-Freitas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Caroline M. Maia, FishEthoGroup Association, Faro, Portugal

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.