Action

Establish fallowing to reduce parasites/disease

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

A study in Scotland recorded lower lice numbers on Atlantic salmon in cages using a fallowing system. Another study in Australia found no difference in mortality from Amoebic Gill Disease in cages where a fallowing system had been used.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A study of four fish farms on the west coast of Scotland between 1990 and 1992 (Bron et al. 1993) found that fallowing was effective in controlling lice numbers on Atlantic salmon. The salmon at site 1 were heavily infected with lice throughout the period of the study and therefore required regular treatment. Lice numbers were low in new smolts at sites 2-4 (where fallowing took place) and treatment wasn’t required as often as for site 1 (where there was no fallowing). Treatment for lice wasn’t required as often for salmon at sites 2 and 3 (long fallow periods of at least 16 weeks) compared to site 4 (fallow period of around 9 weeks) suggesting longer periods of fallowing were more effective in controlling lice numbers. The four farms had fallowing periods of 0, 17, 16 and 9 weeks respectively (hereby sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively). Sites 2-4 contained only one intake of salmon at a time whereas site 1 contained salmon of multiple year classes. Samples of salmon were taken from each farm every two weeks for 20 months and lice numbers (of species L.salmonis and C.elongatus) were counted.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated study from 2000- 2002 in Tasmania, Australia (Douglas-Helders et al. 2004) found no difference in mortality from amoebic gill disease (AGD) in Atlantic Salmon using the method of fallowing cages. Cumulative mortality at the end of the trials was 2.06% for the rotated cages and 2.88% for the stationary cages which was not significantly different in both years of the experiment. The fallowing period in different cages ranged from 4 to 97 days and the experiment was repeated in 2 growing seasons (December to March 2000/2001 and December to April 2001/2002). Average biomass per pen was 15,026 kg and 20,304.4 kg for the stationary treatment groups in the two seasons respectively. Average biomass for the rotated pens was 17,115 kg and 21,000.9 kg per pen. Signs of clinical disease were assessed monthly using the routine Tasmanian salmon farmers gill assessment method by examining at least 20 fish for the presence of AGD.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Jones, A.C., Mead, A., Austen, M.C.V.  & Kaiser, M.J. (2013) Aquaculture: Evidence for the effects of interventions to enhance the sustainability of aquaculture using Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as a case study. Bangor University

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Sustainable Aquaculture

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Sustainable Aquaculture
Sustainable Aquaculture

Sustainable Aquaculture - Published 2013

Atlantic salmon Aquaculture Synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust