Evaluation of Three External Marking Methods of Farmed Atlantic Salmon for the Future Use of Differentiating it From Wild Atlantic Salmon
Atle Mortensen, Oyvind J Hansen and Velmurugu Puvanendran*
Nofima AS, Muninbakken 9-13, 9291 Tromsø, Norway
- *Corresponding Author:
- Velmurugu Puvanendran
Nofima AS, Muninbakken 9-13
9291 Tromsø, Norway
Tel: +47 77629216
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: June 03, 2016; Accepted Date: October 24, 2016; Published Date: October 26, 2016
Citation: Mortensen A, Hansen OJ, Puvanendran V (2016) Evaluation of Three External Marking Methods of Farmed Atlantic Salmon for the Future Use of Differentiating it From Wild Atlantic Salmon. J Aquac Res Development 7:451. doi: 10.4172/2155-9546.1000451
Copyright: © 2016 Mortensen A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
We evaluated different external marking methods for farmed salmon to differentiate it from wild salmon without any special tools. Three marking methods were tested: 1) Adipose fin (AF) removal, 2) Freeze branding (FB) and, 3) Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE). Location of the marking method on the fish, combination of marking methods and degree of AF removal were tested in three experiments. Atlantic salmon parr weighing 20 g were marked either with individual marks or in combination of two. Further all the fish were also PIT tagged. They were kept in freshwater tanks for 4 months and later after smoltification, smolts were transferred to sea cages and kept for another 4 months. At the end of four (freshwater phase) and ten (sea cages) months, growth, survival and mark retention were recorded. All these methods had no significant effects on growth and survival compared to the control (no mark but only PIT tagged). Our results showed that of these methods, only complete removal of the adipose fin met the requirements for mark retention and was the cheapest and easiest method to automate. However, a larger commercial scale long-term testing of the AF clipping is required prior to implementing it. Further development of an automated fin clipping in combination with vaccination and an open discussion with consumers, buyers, and environmental groups are also warranted.