Fish can be the recipients of numerous injuries that are potentially deleterious to aquacultural production performance and welfare. This review will employ a systematic approach that classifies injuries in relation to specific anatomical areas of the fish and will evaluate the effects of injury upon production and welfare. The selected areas include the (1) mouth, (2) eye, (3) epidermis and (4) fins. These areas cover a large number of external anatomical features that can be injured during aquacultural procedures and husbandry practices. In particular, these injuries can be diagnosed on live fish, in a farm environment. For each anatomical feature, this review addresses (a) its structure and function and (b) defines key injuries that can affect the fish from a production and a welfare perspective. Particular attention is then given to (c) defining known and potential aquacultural risk factors before (d) identifying and outlining potential short- and long-term farming practices and mitigation strategies to reduce the incidence and prevalence of these injuries. The review then concludes with an analysis of potential synergies between risk factors the type of injury, in addition to identifying potential synergies in mitigation strategies. The paper covers both aquaculture and capture-based aquaculture.

No abstract

The last paragraph of the section ''Genetic Effects'' should not be indented with the preceding quoted text. The corrected formatting is reprinted below including the leading paragraph.These impacts necessitate an evaluation of the long-term survival of some wild salmon populations (Fleming et al. 2000). In their paper on fitness reduction and extinction, McGinnity and co-authors (2003) summarized:Irrespective of the exact extent of fitness reduction, the fact that farm escapes are repetitive, often resulting in annual intrusions in some rivers, means that such reductions in fitness are cumulative, which could potentially lead to an extinction vortex in endangered populations.Eliminating escapes is the best way to decrease harmful interactions between escapees and their wild counterparts (Bridger and Garber 2002). The only way to effectively eliminate escapes in organic systems, however, is to prohibit use of net pens.

Knowledge of animal welfare has become essential for veterinarians. However, there is no clear consensus about how to provide veterinarians and students with this critical information. The challenges associated with finding qualified instructors and fitting additional courses into an already full curriculum mean that options for learning about animal welfare beyond the veterinary school classroom must be explored. Online courses can be excellent ways for veterinary students and graduate veterinarians to become familiar with current animal-welfare science, assessment schemes, and regulations while removing geographical barriers and scheduling difficulties. Faculty at Michigan State University have created an online animal-welfare course with lecture material from experts in welfare-related social and scientific fields that provides an overview of the underlying concepts as well as opportunities to practice assessing welfare. However, to develop expertise in animal welfare, veterinarians need more than a single course. Graduate degrees can be a way of obtaining additional knowledge and scientific expertise. Traditional thesis-based graduate programs in animal-welfare science are available in animal-science departments and veterinary colleges throughout North America and offer students in-depth research experience in specific areas or species of interest. Alternatively, the University of Guelph offers a year-long Master of Science degree in which students complete a series of courses with a specialization in animal behavior and welfare along with a focused research project and paper. In summary, a range of options exist that can be tailored to provide graduate veterinarians and veterinary students with credible education regarding animal welfare beyond the veterinary curriculum.

Fish welfare is currently a hotly debated topic; this is mainly due to the issue of whether or not fish have the capacity for conscious awareness, or subjective states. Because of the contentious nature of animal consciousness, the subject is often avoided in many welfare arguments, but it is argued that since welfare should be about how animals feel, this issue is unavoidable. There is also good reason to believe that the issue of assessing subjective states is not as insurmountable as some believe.