Multiple determinants of welfare in farmed fish: stocking density, disturbance, and aggression in Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) were held in seawater tanks at stocking densities of 15, 25, and 35 kg·m–3(with five replicates). After 51 days, four measures of welfare (body condition, fin condition, plasma glucose, and cortisol) were collected and combined by principal components analysis into an integrated welfare score for each fish. Fish with high and low welfare scores were found in all conditions, but overall welfare was best at the intermediate density, supporting the view that low densities as well as high densities can compromise welfare in salmon. The effect of stocking density interacted with the stronger effect of disturbance, creating a complex pattern of variation in welfare among the experimental tanks. Counter-intuitively, welfare scores were higher in tanks with a high level of disturbance, while welfare scores were strikingly low at the lowest density. Aggression in all tanks was low, but rose after feeding, when aggression was negatively related to both disturbance and stocking density. These data highlight the complex determinants of welfare in fish in production systems and, taken together, suggest that negative effects of husbandry practice and density on welfare in Atlantic salmon might be mediated by their influence on social interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".