Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41096408›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Economic Feasibility of Implementing Stunning for Farmed Fish in the EU: A Multi-Species Assessment.

Griffin Carpenter, Myriam Vanderzwalmen, Helen Lambert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Griffin CarpenterIndependent Researcher, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4025-1256
Myriam VanderzwalmenEurogroup for Animals, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3219-3009
Helen LambertAnimal Welfare Consultancy, Kingsteignton, Devon TQ12 3BW, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1530-0033

Funding

Eurogroup for Animals NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stunning of farmed fish prior to slaughter is increasingly recognized as a key animal welfare priority, yet uptake remains limited in the EU aquaculture sector. While the effects of different stunning methods on fish welfare are the subject of significant recent research, the effect on aquaculture businesses remains unclear. Therefore, this study assesses the economic feasibility of implementing electrical stunning for four species where it is not currently routine: carp, trout, seabass, and seabream. Using a granular cost model across 17 country-species-system combinations, and cost data from 2018 to 2020, the impact of introducing in-water and dry electrical stunning systems under various cost pass-through and sensitivity scenarios is evaluated. Results show that while stunning increases the production costs, under realistic assumptions, 16 out of 17 segments remain profitable, with the one unprofitable segment already being unprofitable under business-as-usual conditions. Three trout systems even experience cost savings due to reduced labor requirements. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of these findings across plausible increases in operating costs and financing assumptions. Even under a 0% cost pass-through, 16 segments still remain profitable. These results provide timely, policy-relevant evidence to support species-specific welfare legislation, while identifying segments that may require targeted support for compliance.

Indexed as

aquaculturecommon carpdry-stunningeconomic feasibilityelectrical stunningEuropean seabassgilthead seabreamhumane slaughterin-water stunningrainbow trout

Identifiers

PMID41096408
PMCPMC12524040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.