4.7 Review

Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: A review of current practices and possible environmental effects

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 306, 期 1-4, 页码 7-23

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.05.020

关键词

Salmon aquaculture; Chemical inputs; Review; Therapeutants; Metals; Antibiotics

资金

  1. John Simon Guggenheim Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The World Wildlife Fund is facilitating a dialogue on impacts of salmon aquaculture. The goal of the dialogue is to establish the state of knowledge in seven subject areas associated with the industry: benthic impacts, nutrient loading, escapees, chemical inputs, diseases, feeds and social issues and to establish international standards for salmon aquaculture practices. Chemical inputs from salmon aquaculture include antifoulants, antibiotics, parasiticides, anaesthetics and disinfectants. The use and potential effects of these compounds are herein summarized for the four major salmon producing nations: Norway, Chile, UK and Canada. Regulations governing chemical use in each country are presented as are the quantities and types of compounds used. The problems associated with fish culture are similar in all jurisdictions, the magnitude of problems is not and the number of compounds available to the fish farmer varies from country to country. Unfortunately, the requirement to publically report chemical use is inconsistent among countries. Chemical use data are available from Norway, Scotland and parts of Canada. The government of Chile and some Canadian provinces, while requiring that farmers report disease occurrence, compounds prescribed and quantities used, do not make this information readily available to the public. The fact that these data are available from regulatory agencies in Scotland and Norway adds pressure for other jurisdictions to follow suit. Data such as these are essential to planning and conducting research in field situations. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据