Attack site and resultant damage during aggressive encounters in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) parr

Turnbull, James F.; Adams, Colin E.; Richards, R. H.; Robertson, D. A.

doi:10.1016/s0044-8486(97)00233-0

Cited by 71 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…have been described in farmed fish (Abbott and Dill, 1985;Turnbull et al, 1998), particularly fin or skin erosion and eye lesions. They have a detrimental influence on health and welfare of the animals (Turnbull et al, 1998), but no study was conducted to investigate the nociceptive character of such lesions.…”

Section: Injuries and Other Lesional Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review

Prunier

Mounier

Neindre³

et al. 2013

Animal

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One important objective for animal welfare is to maintain animals free from pain, injury or disease. Therefore, detecting and evaluating the intensity of animal pain is crucial. As animals cannot directly communicate their feelings, it is necessary to identify sensitive and specific indicators that can be easily used. The aim of the present paper is to review relevant indicators to assess pain in several farm species. The term pain is used for mammals, birds and fish, even though the abilities of the various species to experience the emotional component of pain may be different. Numerous behavioural changes are associated with pain and many of them could be used on farms to assess the degree of pain being experienced by an animal. Pain, as a stressor, is associated with variations in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as in the sympathetic and immune systems that can be used to identify the presence of pain rapidly after it started. However, most of these measures need sophisticated equipment for their assessment. Therefore, they are mainly adapted to experimental situations. Injuries and other lesional indicators give information on the sources of pain and are convenient to use in all types of situations. Histopathological analyses can identify sources of pain in experimental studies. When pronounced and/or long lasting, the pain-induced behavioural and physiological changes can decrease production performance. Some indicators are very specific and sensitive to pain, whereas others are more generally related to stressful situations. The latter can be used to indicate that animals are suffering from something, which may be pain. Overall, this literature review shows that several indicators exist to assess pain in mammals, a few in birds and very few in fish. Even if in some cases, a single indicator, usually a behavioural indicator, may be sufficient to detect pain, combining various types of indicators increases sensitivity and specificity of pain assessment. Research is needed to build and validate new indicators and to develop systems of pain assessment adapted to each type of situation and each species.

show abstract

Section: Injuries and Other Lesional Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review

Prunier

Mounier

Neindre³

et al. 2013

Animal

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dorsal fin has been shown to be a preferential target during aggressive attacks (Abbott and Dill, 1985). In contrast, Turnbull et al (1998) found pectoral fin erosion to be the result of abrasion with tank walls rather than aggressive attacks. At the conclusion of the study, Kensington parr were being reared in a pond with a pool liner and had pectoral fins that were in better condition than parr from the White River hatchery, which were in a concrete pond.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fin development in stream- and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon

Pelis¹,

McCormick²

2003

Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the effect of development and environment on fin growth, we measured fin lengths of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from two hatcheries (August, October and April -May), stream-reared fish (July and October) stocked as fry into two tributaries, and smolts from the main stem of the Connecticut River (May). For stream-reared parr, there was a linear relationship between the dorsal, caudal and anal fins with fork length, while the pectoral, pelvic and adipose fins exhibited a curvilinear relationship with fork length. Parr from a high gradient stream had larger caudal fins than fish from a low gradient stream, but other fins did not differ. Regression lines for the fins of stream-reared smolts were all linear when fin length was regressed against fork length. Stream-reared parr had larger pectoral, pelvic and anal fins than smolts of similar size while dorsal and caudal fin lengths did not differ. Regression equations formulated using the fins of stream-reared parr were used to calculate the percent difference (100 Â observed fin length/expected) in fin lengths between stream-and hatchery-reared parr. The pelvic, adipose, caudal and anal fins of hatchery-reared parr showed no signs of degeneration by the first sampling period 7 months after hatching, whereas degeneration in the pectoral (13 -20%) and dorsal (15 -18%) fins was evident at this time. By the end of the study, degeneration was present in every fin except the adipose, with the pectoral (35 -65%) and dorsal (32 -58%) fins exhibiting the greatest amount of fin loss. All fins of hatchery-reared parr became shorter with time. There were minor differences in fin degeneration among parr from the two hatcheries, but the overall pattern of decreasing fin size was similar, indicating a common cause of fin degeneration. Comparison of stream-and hatchery-reared fish is a valuable means of determining the impact of captive environments on fin growth. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

show abstract

“…cannibalism for carnivorous species) and frequency of injuries (e.g. fin injuries) (Turnbull et al, 1998).…”

Section: Prospects For Genetic Improvement Of Fish Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%