Does the level of asepsis impact the success of surgically implanting tags in Atlantic salmon?

Abstract

ABSTRACT. It is generally recommended that a high level of asepsis be maintained during surgical implantation ofelectronic tags into fish. However, documentation of a positive effect of asepsis in fish surgery is lacking. Tocompare the effects of surgical implantation performed under different sanitary conditions, 100 hatcherysalmon smolts (Salmo salar) were surgically implanted with tags with and without trailing antenna andwere kept in a hatchery facility. After 34 days, the surviving smolts were euthanized and survival, growthand healing were compared between fish tagged under aseptic conditions and fish tagged without regardto aseptic technique. The results demonstrated that there was no detectable difference in survival, growthand healing between the treatments. Thus, this study could not provide evidence supporting the generalrecommendation of achieving a high level of asepsis during fish surgery.

Effect of anesthetic, tag size, and surgeon experience on postsurgical recovering after implantation of electronic tags in a neotropical fish: Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1837) (Characiformes: Prochilodontidae)

“…Thus, both anesthetics used in this study meet the requirements for use of anesthetics in fish proposed by Lietdke & Rub (2012): rapid induction and recovery times and lack of long-term effects on fish physiology and behavior. In fact, eugenol and electroanesthesia are appropriate anesthetics for studies that require surgical implantation of transmitters in the field, and choice of anesthetic should be based on logistical aspects and on the welfare status of tagged fish (Jepsen et al, 2013;Mulcahy, 2013;Jepsen et al, 2014;Mulcahy, 2014).…”

Effects of surgically implanted tags and translocation on the movements of common bream Abramis brama (L.)

“…The tagging procedure was designed with the highest regard for fish welfare and animal ethics, aseptic techniques, incision dressing and antibiotics were employed as a 'belt and braces' approach to safeguard against post-operative infection, despite recent evidence that such measures do not increase post-operative survival (see Jepsen et al, 2013). This approach was adopted following advice from the regulator.…”

“…This approach was adopted following advice from the regulator. This subject has been cause for recent debate and some now consider it important to discourage researchers from taking unnecessary precautions unless there are specific (documented) problems with infections (see Jepsen et al, 2013, 2014a. The mean linear range LR (±SE) over five concurrent five day periods up to 25 days after release for the translocated group (n = 3; light grey bars) and nontranslocated control group (n = 7; dark grey bars).…”

Tagging Fish in the Field: Ethical and Procedural Considerations. A Comment to the Recent Paper of D. Mulcahy; Legal, Ethical and Procedural Bases for the Use of Aseptic Techniques to Implant Electronic Devices, (Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4:211–219)

“…Although infections in fish after tagging have been reported, these infections have been described as secondary in nature, rather than introduced due to a breach in asepsis (Mellas and Haynes 1985). Often such infections are equally prevalent on control fish, which emphasizes that they arise from the capture and handling component and not the surgery per se (e.g., Chomyshyn et al 2011;Jepsen et al 2013). The few studies that were designed specifically to evaluate the risk of infection concluded that aseptic practices were without merit for fish tagged under ''normal'' conditions.…”

“…Results showed no positive effect of reducing water entry at the incision or of using sterile equipment. In a similar study, Jepsen et al (2013) compared survival, growth, and healing of juvenile salmon Salmo salar tagged with ''dirty'' vs. ''clean'' techniques. This study also showed no positive effect of asepsis.…”