Don't use it? Don't lose it! Why active use is not required for stimuli, resources or "enrichments" to have welfare value.

Current frameworks for designing and evaluating good enclosures and "enrichments" typically focus on animals' active interactions with these features. This has undoubtedly improved the welfare of zoo-housed animals over the last 30 years or more. However, literature reviews from this same period identify persistent gaps in how such frameworks are applied: experiences and behaviors that do not rely on active interaction with stimuli or resources are largely ignored, when evaluating the welfare value of enclosures and enrichments within them. Here, we review research evidence demonstrating that active interaction is not always a reliable measure of welfare value, showing that items that elicit little or no interaction can nevertheless still reduce stress and improve well-being. This evidence largely comes from research on humans, lab animals and farm animals, but also from some zoo studies too. We then investigate why. We review psychology and ethology literatures to show that such welfare benefits can arise from five, non-mutually exclusive, processes or mechanisms that are well-understood in humans and domestic animals: (1) some motivations are sated quickly by interaction with resources, yet still have large welfare benefits; (2) active interaction may just be a way to achieve a goal or solve a problem, without being beneficial for welfare in itself; (3) having opportunities for choice and control may be inherently beneficial, even when not acted on; (4) some enclosure features meet social needs for structure, landmarks, and blocked sightlines; and (5) some stimuli may be preferred because they signaled good environments to an animal's ancestors. We use this information to identify  improved ways of enhancing and assessing zoo animal welfare. Incorporating these concepts should expand the scope of behaviors and subjective experiences that are targeted, to now include those that involve little active interaction and yet still are important for good welfare.

A rapid classification tool for deformities in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) embryos.

Deformities in fish embryos are important for their survival in later life stages. However, a consistent way to refer to and classify salmonid embryo deformities does not exist. Expanding on reports of alevin deformities, we developed a classification tool for distinguishing the deformities observed in a collection of preserved Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) embryos. Deformities were classified based on the deformed body part and a qualitative subtype. This classification tool uses external morphology, requires minimal equipment and can be applied from the first appearance of optic vesicles to hatch.

Research Before Policy: Identifying Gaps in Salmonid Welfare Research That Require Further Study to Inform Evidence-Based Aquaculture Guidelines in Canada.

Aquaculture is a growing industry worldwide and Canadian finfish culture is dominated by marine salmonid farming. In part due to increasing public and stakeholder concerns around fish welfare protection, the first-ever Canadian Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farmed Salmonids was recently completed, following the National Farm Animal Care Council's (NFACC) rigorous Code development process. During this process, both the Scientific (responsible for reviewing existing literature and producing a peer-reviewed report that informs the Code) and Code Development (a diverse group of stakeholders including aquaculture producers, fish transporters, aquaculture veterinarians, animal welfare advocates, food retailers, government, and researchers) Committees identified research gaps in tandem, as they worked through the literature on salmonid physiology, health, husbandry, and welfare. When those lists are combined with the results of a public "top-of-mind" survey conducted by NFACC, they reveal several overlapping areas of scientific, stakeholder, and public concern where scientific evidence is currently lacking: (1) biodensity; (2) health monitoring and management, with a focus on sea lice infection prevention and management; (3) feed quality and management, particularly whether feed restriction or deprivation has consequences for welfare; (4) enclosure design, especially focused on environmental enrichment provision and lighting design; and (5) slaughter and euthanasia. For each of these five research areas, we provide a brief overview of current research on the topic and outline the specific research gaps present. The final section of this review identifies future research avenues that will help address these research gaps, including using existing paradigms developed by terrestrial animal welfare researchers, developing novel methods for assessing fish welfare, and the validation of new salmonid welfare indices. We conclude that there is no dearth of relevant research to be done in the realm of farmed salmonid welfare that can support crucial evidence-based fish welfare policy development.