Quantifying environmental impacts of cleaner fish used as sea lice treatments in salmon aquaculture with life cycle assessment. (24th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Philis, Gaspard; Ziegler, Friederike; Jansen, Mona Dverdal; Gansel, Lars Christian; Hornborg, Sara; Aas, Grete Hansen; Stene, Anne
• Other Names: Vázquez‐Rowe Ian guestEditor.; Parker Robert guestEditor.; Hamilton Helen guestEditor.; Liu Huan guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Journal of industrial ecology. Volume 26:Number 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1992
• Page End: 2005
• Publication Date: 2021-03-24
• Subjects: cleaner fish -- industrial ecology -- lice treatment -- life cycle assessment (LCA) -- salmon aquaculture -- sea lice; Industrial ecology -- Periodicals; Product life cycle -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Industrial management -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Écologie industrielle -- Périodiques; 658.56
• DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13118
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1088-1980

Abstract

Abstract: Increasing pressure of sea lice, development of multi‐resistance to chemotherapeutants, and alternative delousing strategies have been raising concerns about the environmental impacts of salmon farming. Ectoparasitic sea lice and its treatments represent a major bottleneck for the development of the Norwegian salmonid aquaculture. The environmental impacts of different treatments and their contribution to the salmon footprint remain unknown; these processes have been excluded from life cycle assessment (LCA) of farmed salmon. In this work, we apply LCA to quantify the impacts of three different value chains expressed per ton of cleaner fish farmed/fished, distributed, and used. The impacts of farmed lumpfish, farmed wrasse, and fished wrasse are then combined to calculate the footprint of the Norwegian biological lice treatment mix, expressed per ton of salmon produced. We found that wrasse fishing generates considerably lower impacts than farmed lumpfish and, a fortiori, farmed wrasse. The direct comparison of these value chains is compromised since LCA is unable to quantify ecosystem impacts and because cleaner fish delousing efficiencies remain unknown. Overall, the impacts of biological lice treatments have a low contribution to the salmon footprint, suggesting that using this treatment type could be a sound approach to treat salmon. However, such favorable results depend on three critical factors: (1) the efficiency of biological lice treatments needs to be confirmed and quantified; (2) ecosystem impacts should be accounted for; and (3) cleaner fish welfare issues must be addressed. This article met the requirements for a gold‐gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges .