Akuakültürde Balık Refahı

Öz

Balıkların korunmasına ilişkin mevzuat diğer çiftlik hayvanlarını kapsayan mevzuat ile aynı zamanda yürürlüğe girmiştir. Ancak balık refahına ilişkin gelişmeler nispeten daha yavaş ilerlemektedir. Bunun en önemli nedeni çok sayıdaki balık türü ve çeşitli yetiştirme sistemlerinin karmaşık doğasıdır. Mevcut araştırmalar balıklarda bilinç ve duyarlılık kapasitesinin varlığını tanımlamış ve balıkların ağrı, acı ve ızdırap hissedebildiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca araştırmalar balıklar ile yetiştirme çevresi arasındaki etkileşimlerin balıklarda stres yanıtları oluşturduğunu ve refah kayıplarına neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu makalede akuakültürde yetiştirilen balıkların refahına ilişkin kavram, mevzuat ve refah değerlendirme yöntemleri ile balık yetiştirme, taşıma, kesim ve öldürme uygulamalarının balık refahına etkilerine ilişkin güncel araştırma bulgularının derlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca su ürünleri alanı çalışanları ile tüketicilerin balık refahına ilişkin farkındalığının arttırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yüksek stok yoğunluğu, su kalitesi, hastalıklar ile balık nakilleri ve kesim ve öldürme uygulamaları balık refahı için en önemli risklerdir. Balıklarda türe özel olmak üzere refah ihtiyaçlarının tanımlanması ile etkili ve pratik refah değerlendirme metotlarının geliştirilmesine ihtiyaç vardır. Ayrıca su içinde veya dışında iken stres faktörlerine karşı uyum kapasitesi oldukça sınırlı olan balıkların korunması için yetiştirici, bakıcı ve tüketicilerin iyi hayvan refahı konusunda eğitiminde fayda olduğu kanaatine varılmıştır..

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akuakültür
• Balık refahı
• Çevre faktörleri
• Refahın değerlendirilmesi

Fish Welfare in Aquaculture

Abstract

Legislation for fish welfare was implemented concurrently with that for other animals. Nonetheless, advancements in fish welfare have been comparatively slow. This is mainly due to the complexity of fish species and aquaculture systems. Recent studies have shown that fish are conscious and sentient. Furthermore, research indicates that fish interactions with their environment can induce stress responses in fish leading to welfare losses. This article aims to summarise the concepts, regulations and assessment methods related to the welfare of farmed fish in aquaculture, and to summarise current research on the effects of fish farming, transport, slaughter and killing practices on fish welfare. In addition, the aim is to raise awareness of fish welfare issues among professionals in the fisheries sector and among consumers. High stocking density, water quality, diseases, and fish transfers, as well as slaughter and killing practices, are the most significant risks to fish welfare. There is a need to develop species-specific welfare requirements and effective and practical welfare assessment methods for fish. It was also concluded that educating producers, caretakers and consumers about good animal welfare practices can beneficial to fish welfare, given the limited adaptability of fish to stressors both in and out of the water

Keywords

• Aquaculture
• Environmental factors
• Fish welfare
• Welfare assessment

Kaynakça

1. Adams CE, Turnbull JF, Bell A, Bron JE, Huntingford FA. 2007. Multiple determinants of welfare in farmed fish: Stocking density, disturbance, and aggression in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 64: 336-44. doi: 10.1139/f07-018.
2. Akdemir G, Er A, İpek ZZ, Minaz M, Kayış Ş. 2022. Effects of ceramic balls on trout welfare during their live transfer conditions. Ege J Fish Aqua Sci. 39(1): 55-60. doi: 10.12714/egejfas.39.1.08.
3. Alfonso S, Sadoul B, Cousin X, Begout ML. 2020. Spatial distribution and activity patterns as welfare indicators in response to water quality changes in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L). Appl Anim Behav Sci. 226:104974. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2020.104974.
4. Andrew JE, Noble C, Kadri S, Jewell H, Huntingford FA. 2002. The effect of demand feeding on swimming speed and feeding responses in Atlantic salmonu Salmo salar L., gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata L. and European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. in sea cages. Aquacult Res. 33: 501-507. doi.10.046/j.1365-2109.2002.00740.x Anras MLB, Lagardere JP. 2004. Measuring cultured fish swimming behaviour: first results on rainbow trout using acoustic telemetry in tanks. Aquaculture, 240:175-186. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.02.019.
5. Arechavala‐Lopez P, Cabrera‐Alvarez MJ, Maia CM, Saraiva JL. 2022. Environmental enrichment in fish aquaculture: A review of fundamental and practical aspects. Rev Aquac. 14:704-728. doi:10.1111/raq.12620.
6. Ashley PJ. 2007. Fish welfare: current issues in aquaculture. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 104(3-4):199-235. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.001.
7. Bar N. 2014. Physiological and hormonal changes during prolonged starvation in fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71:1447-1458. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0175.
8. Boujard T, Labbe L, Auperin B. 2002. Feeding behaviour, energy expenditure and growth of rainbow trout in relation to stocking density and food accessibility. Aquacult Res. 33:1233–1242. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2109.2002.00755.x.

9. Broom DM. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. Brit. Vet. J. 142: 524-526.
10. Broom DM. 2007. Cognitive ability and sentience: Which aquatic animals should be protected?. Dis Aquat Org. 75(2): 99-108. doi:10.3354/dao075099.
11. Brown C, Dorey C. 2019. Pain and Emotion in Fishes-Fish welfare implications for fisheries and aquaculture. Anim Stud J. 8(2):175-201. doi:10.14453/asj.v8i2.1.
12. Calabrese S, Nilsen TO, Kolarevic J, Ebbesson LOE, Pedrosa C, Fivelstad S, Hosfeld C, Stefansson SO, Terjesen BF, Takle H, Martins CIM, Sveier H, Mathisen F, Imsland AK, Handeland SO. 2017. Stocking density limits for post-smolt Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) with emphasis on production performance and welfare. Aquaculture, 468: 363- 370. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.10.041.
13. Carbonara P, Alfonso S, Gai F, Gasco L, Palmegiano G, Spedicato MT, Zupa W, Lembo, G. (2020). Moderate stocking density does not influence the behavioural and physiological responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in organic aquaculture. Aquac Res. 51(7): 3007-3016. doi:10.1111/are.14640.
14. Cascarano MC, Stavrakidis-Zachou O, Mladineo I, Thompson KD, Papandroulakis N, Katharios P. 2021. Mediterranean aquaculture in a changing climate: temperature effects on pathogens and diseases of three farmed fish species. Pathogens, 10(9): 1205. doi:org/10.3390/pathogens10091205.
15. Chandroo KP, Cooke SJ, McKinley RS, Moccia RD. 2005. Use of electromyogram telemetry to assess the behavioural and energetic responses of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) to transportation stress. Aquacult Res. 36:1226–1238. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01347.x.
16. Chandroo KP, Duncan IJ, Moccia RD. 2004. Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 86(3-4):225-250. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.004.
17. Clement TS, Parikh V, Schrumpf M, Fernald RD. 2005. Behavioral coping strategies in a cichlid fish: the role of social status and acute stress response in direct and displaced aggression. Horm Behav. 47:336-342. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.014.
18. Clemente GA, Tolini C, Boscarino A, Lorenzi V, Dal Lago TL, Benedetti D, Bellucci F, Manfrin A, Trocino A, Nodari, S R. 2023. Farmed fish welfare during slaughter in Italy: survey on stunning and killing methods and indicators of unconsciousness. Front. Vet. Sci.10.doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1253151.
19. Conte FS. 2004. Stress and the welfare of cultured fish. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86(3-4):205-223.doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.003.
20. Council of Europe 2005. Recommendation concerning farmed fish adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes on 5 December 2005. [Erişim tarihi: 18 Ağustos 2023]. Erişim adresi: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cdcj/2005-rec-farmed-fish.
21. Damsgard B, Sorum U, Ugelstad I, Eliassen RA, Mortensen A, 2004. Effects of feeding regime on susceptibility of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to cold water vibriosis. Aquaculture 239: 37-46. doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.05.037.
22. Dawkins MS. 2004. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim Welfare. 13:3-7. doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600014317.
23. DiBattista JD, Anisman H, Whitehead M, Gilmour KM. 2005. The effects of cortisol administration on social status and brain monoaminergic activity in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. J Exp Biol 208:2707-2718. doi:10.1242/jeb.01690.
24. Ellis T, North B, Scott AP, Bromage NR, Porter M, Gadd D.2002. The relationships between stocking density and welfare in farmed rainbow trout. J Fish Biol. 61: 493-531. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb0 0893.x.
25. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2008. Scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the European Commission on animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed fish: carp. EFSA J. 843:1-28.
26. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Atlantic Salmon. EFSA J. 7: 1011. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1011.
27. FAWC.2014 Farm Animal Welfare Committee. Report on the welfare of farmed fish. Surbiton, Surrey: Farmed Animal Welfare Council.[Erişim tarihi: 23 Ağustos 2023].Erişim Adresi: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-the-welfare-of-farmed-fish.
28. Forabosco F, Löhmus M, Rydhmer L, Sundström LF. 2013. Genetically modified farm animals and fish in agriculture: A review. Livestock Science, 153(1-3):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.01.002.
29. Galhardo L, Oliveira RF. 2009. Psychological stress and welfare in fish. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 11:1-20. doi.org/10.5016/1806–8774.2009v11p1.
30. Gauy ACDS, Bolognesi MC, Gonçalves-de-Freitas E. 2023. Body Tactile Stimulation Reduces the Effects of High Stocking Density on the Welfare of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fishes, 8(6): 320. doi: 10.3390/fishes8060320.
31. Gimenez-Candela M, Saraiva JL, Bauer H. 2020. The legal protection of farmed fish in Europe: analysing the range of EU legislation and the impact of international animal welfare standards for the fishes in European aquaculture. In dA Derecho Animal: Forum of Animal Law Studies. 11(1):0065-118. doi: 10.5565/rev/da.460.
32. Greaves K, Tuene S, 2001. The form and context of aggressive behaviour in farmed Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.). Aquaculture, 193:1-2.doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00476-2.
33. Hastein T, Scarfe AD, Lund VL. 2005. Science-based assessment of welfare: aquatic animals. Rev sci tech Off int Epiz. 24 (2): 529-547.
34. Hastein T. 2004. Animal welfare issues relating to aquaculture. In Global conference on animal welfare: an OIE initiative. European Communities, Paris, France, 212-221.
35. Hønneland G. 2020. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Certification of Arctic Fisheries. Arctic Review on Law and Politics,11:133-156. doi:10.23865/arctic.v11.2488.
36. Hvas M, Stien LH, Oppedal F. 2020. The metabolic rate response to feed withdrawal in Atlantic salmon post-smolts. Aquaculture, 529:735690. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735690.
37. Iversen M, Finstad B, McKinley RS, Eliassen RA, Carlsen KT, Evjen T. 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. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.10.019.
38. Iversen M, Finstad B, McKinley RS, Eliassen RA. 2003. The efficacy of metomidate, clove oil, Aqui-S™ and Benzoak® as anaesthetics in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolts, and their potential stress-reducing capacity. Aquaculture, 221(1-4):549-566.doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00111-X.
39. Kamali S, Ward VC, Ricardez-Sandoval L. 2022. Dynamic modeling of recirculating aquaculture systems: Effect of management strategies and water quality parameters on fish performance. Aquac Eng. 99: 102294. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2022.102294.
40. Kestin SC, Wotton SB, Gregory NG. 1991. Effect of slaughter by removal from water on visual evoked activity in the brain and reflex movement of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Vet Rec. 128:443-446.
41. Kleiber A, Stomp M, Rouby M, Ferreira VHB, Bégout ML, Benhaïm, D.,Labbe L, Tocquevill A, Levadoux M, Calandreau L, Guesdon V, Colson V. 2023. Cognitive enrichment to increase fish welfare in aquaculture: A review. Aquaculture, 739654.doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739654.
42. Köse Ö, Karabulut HA, Er A. 2023. Dandelion root extract in trout feed and its effects on the physiological performance of Oncorhynchus mykiss and resistance to Lactococcus garvieae infection, Ann Anim Sci. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2023-0072.
43. Kristiansen TS, Fernö A, Holm JC, Privitera L, Bakke S, Fosseidengen JE. 2004. Swimming behaviour as an indicator of low growth rate and impaired welfare in Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.) reared at three stocking densities. Aquaculture, 230(1-4):137-151.doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00436-8.
44. Kurtoğlu İZ, Ak K, Genç S. 2021. Effects of stocking density during live transportation on haematological parameters of Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii, Brandt, 1869). J Appl Ichthyol. 37(6): 809-815. doi:10.1111/jai.14266.
45. Liu B, Fei F, Li X, Wang X, Huang B. 2019. Effects of stocking density on stress response, innate immune parameters, and welfare of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus). Aquacult Int. 27.1599-1612. doi:10.1007/s10499-019-00413-2.
46. Lopez-Canovas AE, Cabas I, Chaves-Pozo E, Ros-Chumillas M, Navarro-Segura L, Lopez-Gómez, A, Fernandes MO, Galindo-Villegas J, García-Ayala, A. 2020. Nanoencapsulated Clove Oil Applied as an Anesthetic at Slaughtering Decreases Stress, Extends the Freshness, and Lengthens Shelf Life of Cultured Fish. Foods, 9(12): 1750. doi.org/10.3390/foods9121750.
47. Madaro A, Kristiansen TS, Pavlidis MA. 2020. How fish cope with stress?. The welfare of fish, Animal Welfare, 20: 251-281. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41675-1_11.
48. McKenzie DJ, Höglund E, Dupont-Prinet A, Larsen BK, Skov PV, Pedersen PB, Jokumsen A. 2012. Effects of stocking density and sustained aerobic exercise on growth, energetics and welfare of rainbow trout. Aquaculture, 338 341: 216–222. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.01.020.
49. McLoughlin MF, Graham DA. 2007. Alphavirus infections in salmonids–a review. J Fish Dis. 30(9):511-531. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2007.00848.x.
50. Mellor DJ. 2016.Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a life worthliving”. Animals, 6: 21. doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021.
51. Mercogliano R, Dongo D. 2023. Fish welfare during slaughter: the European Council Regulation 1099/09 Application. Ital J Food Saf. 12(3):10926. doi:10.4081/ijfs.2023.10926.
52. Miller KM, Schulze AD, Ginther N, Li S, Patterson DA, Farrell AP, Hinch SG. 2009. Salmon spawning migration: metabolic shifts and environmental triggers.Comp Biochem Physiol. 4D: 75-89. doi:org/10.1016/j.cbd.2008.11.002.
53. Montero D, Izquierdo MS, Tort L, Robaina L, Vergara JM.1999. High stocking density produces crowding stress altering some physiological and biochemical parameters in gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata, juveniles. Fish Physiol Biochem. 20: 53-60.
54. Mordue AJ, Pike AW. 2002. Salmon farming: towards an integrated pest management strategy for sea lice. Pest Manage Sci. 58: 513-514. doi.org/10.1002/ps.515.
55. Morzel M, Sohier D, Van de Vis H. 2003. Evaluation of slaughtering methods for turbot with respect to animal welfare and flesh quality. J Sci Food Agric. 83: 19-28. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1253.
56. Mustapha MK. 2014. Aquaculture and Fish Welfare: Are the Rights of Fish Compromised?/Akwakultura I Dobrostan Ryb: Czy Prawa Ryb Sa Szanowane?. Zool Polon. 59(1-4): 49. doi: 10.2478/zoop-2014-0005
57. Neiffer DL, Stamper MA. 2009. Fish sedation, anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia: considerations, methods, and types of drugs. ILAR J. 50(4):343-360. doi:10.1093/ilar.50.4.343.
58. Noble C, Gismervik K, Iversen MH, Kolarevic J, Nilsson J, Stien LH, Turnbull JF (eds.) 2018. Welfare Indicators For Farmed Atlantic Salmon: Tools For Assessing Fish Welfare. Tromsø, Norway: Nofima.
59. OIE 2019. World Organisation For Animal Health. Aquatic Animal Health Code.Section 7.0. Welfare of Farmed Fish. Twenty-second Edition. ISBN 978-92-95108-96-7.
60. OIE 2022. WOAH, “Welfare aspects of stunning and killing of farmed fish for human consumption”, Aquatic Animal Health Code (2022). p. 1–4.[Erişim tarihi:3 Eylül 2023].ErişimAdresi:https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/aahc/current/chapitre_welfare_stunning_killing.pdf.
61. Petersson MT. 2022. Transparency in global fisheries governance: The role of non-governmental organizations. Marine Policy. 136:104128. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104128. Pieniak Z, Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W. 2013. Consumer knowledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy 40:25–30. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.01.005.
62. Poli BM. 2009.Farmed fish welfare-suffering assessment and impact on product quality. Ital J Anim Sci. 8: 139-160. doi:10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.139.
63. Poppe TT, Johansen R, Torud B. 2002. Cardiac abnormality with associated hernia in farmed rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Dis Aquat. Org. 50:153-155. doi:10.3354/dao050153.
64. Rajee O, Alicia TK. 2019. Biotechnological application in aquaculture and its sustainability constraints. Int J Adv Biotec Res. 10(3):1-15. Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/publication/1289
65. Reis GG, Molento CFM, Souza APO. 2021. Governance and Standardization in Fish Value Chains: Do They Take Care of Key Animal Welfare Issues?. J Agric Environ Ethics. 34:1-24.34:30. doi:10.1007/s10806-021-09870-3. Relic R, Markovic Z. 2021. Farmed fish welfare, with insight into the situation in Serbia. Veterinarski glasnik, 75(2):132-144.doi.org/10.2298/VETGL210727011R
66. Relic RR, Hristov SV, Vucinic MM, Poleksic VD, Markovic ZZ. 2010. Principles of fish welfare assessment in farm rearing conditions. J Agri Sci. Belgrade, 55(3): 273-282.doi:10.2298/JAS1003273R. Robb DHF, Kestin SC. 2002. Methods used to kill fish: field observations and literature reviewed. Anim Welfare. 11:269–282. doi:10.1017/S0962728600024854.
67. Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Stevens ED, Wynne CDL. 2014. Can fish really feel pain? Fish and Fisheries, 15:97-133. doi:10.1111/faf.12010.
68. Roth B, Slinde E, Robb DHF. 2006. Field evaluation of live chilling with CO2 on stunning Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and the subsequent effect on quality. Aquac Res. 37:799-804. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01495.x
69. Röcklinsberg H. 2015. Fish consumption: choices in the intersection of public concern, fish welfare, food security, human health and climate change. J Agric Environ Ethics. 28:533-551. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9506-y.
70. Sanchez-Suarez W, Franks B, Torgerson-White L. 2020. From land to water: Taking fish welfare seriously. Animals, 10(9): 1585. doi.org/10.3390/ani10091585.
71. Sara G, Oliveri A, Martino G, Serra S, Meloni G, Pais A. 2010. Response of captive seabass and seabream as behavioural indicator in aquaculture. Ital J Anim Sci. 6:823–25. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2007.1s.823.
72. Saraiva JL, Rachinas-Lopes P, Arechavala-Lopez P. 2022. Finding the “golden stocking density”: A balance between fish welfare and farmers' perspectives.Front. Vet.Sci. 1099. doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.930221.
73. Scott GW, Hull SJ, Rollinson DJ. 1999. Surface breaking behaviour in a population of captive rays Raja: the expression of a need to forage? Aquaruim Sci Conserv. 2:161–169.
74. Seibel H, Weirup L, Schulz C. 2020. Fish welfare–between regulations, scientific facts and human perception. Food Ethics, 5:4. doi:10.1007/s41055-019-00063-3.
75. Shabani F, Erikson U, Beli E, Rexhepi A. 2016. Live transport of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and subsequent live storage in market: Water quality, stress and welfare considerations. Aquaculture, 453:110-115. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.040.
76. Sneddon LU. 2003. The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic. App. Anim Behav Sci. 83(2):153-162. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00113-8.
77. Sneddon LU. 2020. Can fish experience pain?. The welfare of fish, Animal welfare, 20:229-249. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41675-1_10.
78. Stevenson P. 2007. Closed waters: The welfare of farmed Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic cod & Atlantic halibut. Compassion in World Farming and World Society for the Protection of Animals, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1EZ, U K.,
79. Stien LH, Bracke MB, Folkedal O, Nilsson J, Oppedal F, Torgersen, T, Kittilsen S, Midtlyng PJ, Vindas MA, Øverli Ø, Kristiansen TS. 2013. Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): A semantic model for overall welfare assessment of caged Atlantic salmon: review of the selected welfare indicators and model presentation. Rev Aquac. 5(1):33-57. doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.1.135.
80. Turnbull J, 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. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.022.
81. Van De Vis H, Kestin S, Robb D, Oehlenschlager J, Lambooij B, Werner M, Kuhlmann H, Kloosterboer K, Tejada M, Huidobro A, Ottera H, Roth B, Sorensen NK, Akse L, Byrne H, Nesvadba P. 2003. Is humane slaughter of fish possible for industry? Aquac Res. 34, 211–220.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00804.x.
82. Vanhonacker F, Altintzoglou T, Luten J. Verbeke W. 2011. "Does fish origin matter to European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain", Brit Food J. 113(4):535-549. doi:10.1108/00070701111124005.
83. Wall AE, Richards RH. 1992. Occurrence of cataracts in triploid Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on four farms in Scotland. Veterinary Record, 131: 553-557.
84. Wang T, Hung CCU, Randall DJ. 2006. The comparative physiology of food deprivation: from feast to famine. Annu Rev Physiol. 68:223–251. doi:10.1146/annurev.physiol.68.040104.105739.
85. Weirup L, Schulz C, Seibel H. 2022. Fish welfare evaluation index (fWEI) based on external morphological damage for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in flow through systems. Aquaculture, 556:738270. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738270.
86. Zhou L, Gui JF. 2018. Applications of genetic breeding biotechnologies in Chinese aquaculture. Aquaculture in China: Success stories and modern trends, 463-496.doi:10.1002/9781119120759.ch6_1