Impact case study database

Production of the six top species groups of farmed fish was estimated at 48.5 million tonnes in 2018 (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO))Footnote:

http://www.fao.org/3/ca9383en/ca9383en.pdf , representing many billions of individuals. These species are grouped as: carps and barbels; tilapias; catfish; salmons, trouts and smelts; freshwater fishes; and marine perch-like species, which include sea bass and sea bream. Total global production of farmed Atlantic salmon alone, the focus of initial UoB research, is estimated to comprise 200,000,000 fish (2.5 million tonnes in 2018, ( FAO)).

Research at UoB (2000 – 2020) alerted animal welfare charities, government agencies and fish producers to problems with existing slaughter practices within aquaculture fish production. Moreover, the work [4-7] identified practicable solutions to achieving an instantaneous loss of consciousness via electrical stunning which represents a more humane method of slaughter than those previously used. Thanks to the evidence base provided by this work, electrical stunners are now used around the world on salmon, trout, turbot and sea bass [2-7]. The use of stunners on pangasius (catfish), sea bream, yellowtail, carp and barramundi is currently under investigation by UoB with industrial partners in an Humane Slaughter Association project (see below), thus the work has successfully reached species from five of the six top groups of farmed fish, and beyond. Thanks to the specification of the new humane methods of stunning at slaughter by international standards, awareness of the methods is global, even if they are not always implemented (e.g. where farms are too small in scale for the equipment to be practical). Further, the UoB research team has collaborated with a commercial partner, Ace Aquatec, to develop stunning equipment. This, in turn, has opened up new markets and increased staff (recently doubling in number) and sales from European, Australian and South American regional offices for Ace Aquatec [I].

Impacts on national and international policy: food and animal welfare standards

To reassure consumers, most food derived from animals, including fish, complies with standards that ensure high standards of hygiene and animal health and welfare. The UK is the EU’s biggest producer of farmed salmon, the focus of earlier UoB research [2,5], and is responsible for 163 thousand tonnes of salmon each year (~15 million fish), 90% by volume of total EU production and 8% of the global market. Over 70% of UK salmon producers adopt RSPCA Assured welfare standards, which require certificate holders to ensure good welfare practices at slaughter. These practices reflect the UoB team’s research; Kestin of the UoB group contributed to the RSPCA’s guidelines on fish welfare at slaughter for farmed Atlantic salmon, which were updated in 2018 [A] and are still informed by UoB work. The UoB team further influenced retailer standards, opening up the use of electrical stunning to more species investigated by UoB, including trout [4] and sea bass [7]. For example, Waitrose, the retailer with the greatest market share of fish in the UK (1.9 million fish/year), requires that “ All our farmed salmon, sea farmed rainbow trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, sea bass, sea bream and halibut are stunned prior to slaughter.” [Bi]. Both Waitrose and the Co-op were partners in Link-funded research [iii] which extended the range of species that could be effectively and practicably stunned, given the widely differing responses between species to stunning, and also investigated stunning in sea water (Waitrose was also a partner in [ii]). The Co-op standards also require that fish are stunned before slaughter [Bii].

The Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC), the expert committee to Defra and the Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and which informs UK legislation and practice, produced a report in 2014, ‘Opinion on the Welfare of Farmed Fish at the Time of Killing’ [C]. The report is based predominantly on UoB’s research: 13 of its 20 references come from their work. The 2018 Humane Slaughter Association (HSA, the UK charity concerned exclusively with promoting humane treatment of all food animals worldwide) report ‘Humane Slaughter of Farmed Finfish around the world’ [D] acknowledges the leading work at UoB, “ Two common methods of stunning fish, currently considered to be the most humane and globally acceptable for food safety, are electrical and percussive stunning. Both methods are already in-use in the rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon industries, respectively, and the stunning parameters are based on scientific recommendations (e.g. Robb et al, 2002b [4] *)*”. The report notes how methodologies for welfare assessment, humane stunning and stun-kill are continually being refined and extended to include other fish species [D].

UoB research continues to inform EU practice and is widely cited (seven references) in a 2017 review [E] funded by the European Commission. This report also notes that “ The OIE and EFSA’s Scientific Opinions (2009) on the key fish species, provide a useful point of reference” (Executive Summary). The EFSA 2009 report on salmon cites nine UoB papers whilst its trout report seven key papers from UoB research (including [1-6]). Other international food standards that insist on humane slaughter (stunning before kill) include the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices (GAABAP, 2017) [Fii], which base their stunning and killing on a review citing seven papers from UoB research (including [1,3,5]), and the Soil Association’s Aquaculture standards [Fiii], which are underpinned by the UoB-informed FAWC guidelines [C]. A 2009 report published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), ‘Stunning and slaughter methods for edible fish’, cites 13 UoB papers and forms an important part of the evidence base used by Naturland’s Standards for Organic Aquaculture (latest version 2020) [Fv]; Naturland is a major international association for organic agriculture.

An increasing number of worldwide standards are adopting guidelines for stunning before slaughter, not only of salmonids (salmon and trout), but also of other farmed fish species. The scientific evidence base for these policy changes includes the pioneering studies by UoB. For example, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) publishes an Aquatic Animal Health Code for its 181 member countries, which states: " farmed fish should be stunned before killing, and the stunning method should ensure immediate and irreversible loss of consciousness” and recommends electrical stunning for “ carp, eel, salmonids” (OIE, 2019) [G]. A review undertaken for the OIE by Lines (of UoB) and Spence (2014) [H] provided the evidence base for the Aquatic Animal Health Code and cites 11 references from the UoB team, including [1-6]. A 2017 assessment of uptake of OIE guidelines, produced for the European Commission by the IBF Consortium (cited in the HSA report [D]), estimated that “ best practices are mostly achieved, with a few exceptions” for Atlantic salmon produced in the European Economic Area.

Economic impacts: industry collaboration and commercialisation of fish stunning equipment

Having developed validated methods for measuring fish welfare at slaughter and defined the principal factors to achieve effective stun with fish in the laboratory, the next step for the UoB group was to upscale the stunning method for commercial settings. Robust and effective stunning equipment was needed to cope with large numbers and rapid processing of fish (line speed in major UK farmed salmon processing factories may be 4,000 per hour, with fish weighing 10-12kg each). This was achieved through Kestin, Knowles and Lines’ research collaboration from 2001 with Ace Aquatec Ltd (AA), producers of aquaculture and marine technologies. Kestin introduced AA to the concept of electrical stunning at an industry meeting and, together, UoB and AA went on to develop and test the first prototype in-line electrical stun systems for the humane commercial killing of farmed salmon and trout [I].

Development work between AA and UoB is ongoing, both in-house and via externally funded research, including GBP721,580 awarded in 2019 by the charity the Humane Slaughter Association to implement in-water electrical stunning in aquaculture of Nile tilapia, Pangasius (catfish), gilthead sea bream, yellowtail and possibly carp [I].

As a result of contributions from UoB, AA is now an award-winning and major provider of humane fish slaughter equipment; in 2019, its Humane Stunner Universal (HSU) technology won a Queen’s award to industry for Enterprise Innovation, while in 2017 it was awarded the Innovation Award at Aqua Nor, the world’s largest aquaculture industry fair. HSU is now in use on farms around the world, including in Chile, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Greece, USA and Canada [Ii]. Before UoB involvement, AA’s core business was seal deterrents for salmon farms. The company has experienced significant growth as a result of introducing the humane slaughter equipment into its product line. AA’s CEO sums up the considerable commercial impacts of the stunning equipment as including: “ new regional offices in Chile, Norway, and Australia; investment … this year totalling over £4m; doubling of staff from 10 to 20 employees in six months; addition of new species to our stunning capabilities, including bream, tilapia, and prawns … The company has grown from a family run business in 2008 with a handful of deterrents sold each year, to an international business with recurring rental revenue of £2m, with an aim to double each year.” [Ii]. AA has increased its net assets from GBP299,904 in 2015 to GBP3,545,347 in December 2019 [Iii], with sales of its humane slaughter equipment making a major contribution. AA also report that the electrical stunning equipment brings sustainability benefits, having “ reduced waste going to landfill and provided an income to farmers/suppliers where otherwise there was an expense for removal and destruction. These products are now supplying high end restaurants and pet food where before the use of anaesthetic required them to go to landfill.” [Ii].