Assessing fish welfare in aquaculture

A framework for assessing the welfare of fish in aquaculture must have a suite of different welfare indicators that describe how well their welfare needs are met and thus their quality of life. The framework should utilise both input- and outcome-based welfare indicators. Input-based welfare indicators are parameters that describe the conditions the fish are subjected to, e.g. their environment. In many cases, input-based welfare indicators can give the farmer or assessor an early warning of deteriorating conditions, which can then be mitigated before they become too severe. However, it can be very challenging to have a complete overview of all the possible input parameters the fish are subjected to, at all times, and at all possible positions in the rearing facility that the fish may occupy. Further, their effects on welfare can also be subtle, delayed and also be dependent upon an array of complex interactions with other parameters and factors. It is, therefore, necessary to also include outcome-based indicators. These are parameters that are normally directly related to the animals, e.g. describing the animals themselves or their behaviour. A simple rule of thumb can be that as long as the fish look good, are doing well, are in good health, show normal behaviour and are thriving, it is not unreasonable to assume that the rearing system or operation is fulfilling, or has not markedly impacted upon, their welfare needs. If not, there is something wrong and this should be investigated further

Farming ethics in practice : from freedom to professional moral autonomy for farmers

Food production, water management, land use, and animal and public health are all topics of extensive public debate. These themes are linked to the core activities of the agricultural sector, and more specifically to the work of farmers. Nonetheless, the ethical discussions are mostly initiated by interest groups in society rather than by farmers. At least in Europe, consumer organizations and animal welfare and environmental organizations are more present in the public debate than farmers. This is not how it should be. First, because consumers often cannot but rely on agriculture. Second, because recent research shows that farmers have moral beliefs and convictions that appear to be broader than economic considerations and that are—to a certain extent—specific to their profession. This raises the question how to make input from farmers operational in the public debates on the future of farming. We discuss one option: entrusting farmers with professional autonomy concerning moral matters related to farming. We sketch the historical background of the current situation in which farmers are relatively silent on moral matters and we present some clear indications that farmers have values and moral beliefs that are relevant for the public debate. Next the concepts of professionalism and professional autonomy are discussed and applied to the practice of farming. Finally, we discuss the relevance and limits of professional moral autonomy for the agricultural profession. We close with an overview of what this moral autonomy implies for and requires from farmers in practice. We conclude that if some preconditions are met by farmers, then this type of moral autonomy can be relevant for farmers and for society, and contributes to the quality of the public debate on the future of farming