With the expansion of Atlantic salmon aquaculture, the economic and ecological impacts of salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) has increased. Norway battles this problematic parasite with various control and preventative methods within farms. We analysed two national-level databases to examine the number of operations reported each year from 2012 to 2017 and salmon mortality rates attributable to each operation type. From 2012 to 2017, 1.4 times more operations were registered, despite only limited increases in biomass produced across this period. We detected a rapid and recent paradigm shift in the industry's approach to lice control from chemotherapeutant to non-medicinal operations. Chemotherapeutants (azamethiphos, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and hydrogen peroxide) dominated operations from 2012 to 2015 (>81%), while mechanical and thermal treatments dominated in 2016 and 2017 (>40% and >74%, respectively). Thermal operations caused greatest mortality increases (elevated mortality for 31% of treatments), followed by mechanical (25%), hydrogen peroxide (21%), and azamethiphos, cypermethrin and deltamethrin (<14%). Temperature, fish size and pre-existing mortality rates all influenced post-treatment mortality outcomes. For chemotherapeutants, mortality increased as sea temperature increased. For mechanical and thermal treatments, mortalities increased at low (4-7°C) and high (13-16°C) temperatures. Fish with high pre-existing mortality (0.25-1.0% mortality the month before treatment) experienced increased mortality after treatment, and large fish (≥2 kg) were more susceptible to increased mortality than small (<2 kg). Generally, thermal, mechanical and hydrogen peroxide operations performed better in 2017 compared to 2015 and 2016, as the percentage of mortality observations were lower. With mechanical and thermal treatments now predominant, future research and industry development should prioritise reducing mortality and improving post-treatment outcomes.
Stocking cleaner fish to control sea lice infestations in Atlantic salmon farms is widespread and is viewed as a salmon welfare-friendly alternative to current delousing control treatments. The escalating demand for cleaner fish (~60 million stocked worldwide per year), coupled with evidence that they experience poor welfare and high mortality in sea cages, requires that the lice removal effect of cleaner fish be substantiated by robust evidence. Here, we systematically ana lysed (1) studies that tested the delousing efficacy of cleaner fish species in tanks or sea cages and (2) studies of spatial overlap-and therefore likely encounter rate-between cleaner fish and salmon when stocked together in sea cages. Only 11 studies compared lice removal between tanks or cages with and without cleaner fish using a replicated experimental design. Most studies had insufficient replication (1 or 2 replicates) and were conducted in small-scale tanks or cages, which does not reflect the large volume and deep cages in which they are deployed commercially. Reported efficacies varied across species and experimental scale: from a 28% increase to a 100% reduction in lice numbers when cleaner fish were used. Further, our review revealed that the interaction of cleaner fish and salmon in sea cages has rarely been documented. While much of the evidence is promising, there is a mismatch between the current evidence and the extent of use by the industry. We recommend replicated studies in 9 key areas at a full commercial scale across all species that are currently widely used. More targeted, evidence-based use of cleaner fish should increase their efficacy and help to alleviate economic, environmental, and ethical concerns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.