Aquaculture is the fastest growing food sector worldwide, mostly driven by a steadily increasing protein demand. In response to growing ecological concerns, life cycle assessment (LCA) emerged as a key environmental tool to measure the impacts of various production systems, including aquaculture. In this review, we focused on farmed salmonids to perform an in-depth analysis, investigating methodologies and comparing results of LCA studies of this finfish family in relation to species and production technologies. Identifying the environmental strengths and weaknesses of salmonid production technologies is central to ensure that industrial actors and policymakers make informed choices to take the production of this important marine livestock to a more sustainable path. Three critical aspects of salmonid LCAs were studied based on 24 articles and reports: (1) Methodological application, (2) construction of inventories, and (3) comparison of production technologies across studies. Our first assessment provides an overview and compares important methodological choices. The second analysis maps the main foreground and background data sources, as well as the state of process inclusion and exclusion. In the third section, a first attempt to compare life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) data across production technologies was conducted using a single factor statistical protocol. Overall, findings suggested a lack of methodological completeness and reporting in the literature and demonstrated that inventories suffered from incomplete description and partial disclosure. Our attempt to compare LCA results across studies was challenging due to confounding factors and poor data availability, but useful as a first step in highlighting the importance of production technology for salmonids. In groups where the data was robust enough for statistical comparison, both differences and mean equalities were identified, allowing ranking of technology clusters based on their average scores. We statistically demonstrated that sea-based systems outperform land-based technology in terms of energy demand and that sea-based systems have a generally higher FCR than land-based ones. Cross-study analytics also strongly suggest that open systems generate on average more eutrophying emissions than closed designs. We further discuss how to overcome bottlenecks currently hampering such LCA meta-analysis. Arguments are made in favor of further developing cross-study LCA analysis, particularly by increasing the number of salmonid LCA available (to improve sample sizes) and by reforming in-depth LCA practices to enable full reproducibility and greater access to inventory data.

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.