Labeo calbasu (Orangefin labeo): WelfareCheck|farm

Distribution

least concern

Information

Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-08-15)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2022-07-30
Version information:

Appearance: B
Last minor update: 2022-08-15

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2022. Labeo calbasu (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2022-07-30. Version B | 1.1. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Labeo calbasu

LiPoCe

Criteria

Home range

Depth range

Migration

Reproduction

Aggregation

Aggression

Substrate

Stress

Malformations

Slaughter

Legend

Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

High

Medium

Low

Unclear

No findings

General remarks

Labeo calbasu is a freshwater fish species that naturally inhabits ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, and slow-moving waters of rivers of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and South Western China in Asia. It is a cyprinid with a demersal habit that is important for commercial and recreational fisheries, with a high consumer preference and also being frequently used in game fishing in ponds and reservoirs. L. calbasu has a great resistance to diseases and is able to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, which are interesting characteristics for aquaculture. It can be cultivated with Indian major carps (Labeo catla, L. rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala) and exotic carps (e.g., Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, Ctenopharyngodon idella, Cyprinus carpio). L. calbasu is a seasonal breeder and spawns once per year in lotic environments. The populations of this cyprinid species are showing a declining trend in most of the water bodies, probably due to the introduction of exotic fishes, overexploitation and changes to its habitats such as pollution, siltation, and habitat loss. Considering the literature, mostly important wild information about this carp is still missing, especially about home range and depth range use, migratory behaviour, aggregation patterns and aggression. Moreover, further studies are needed to highlight relevant information about farming conditions of L. calbasu, such as malformation rates, stress response, compatibility with migration needs, and slaughtering protocols.

1 Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: concrete tanks: 50 m² (10 x 5 m) 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 100-1,000 m² 2, tanks: 1.4 m² (1.2 x 1.2 m) 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 75 m² (7.5 x 10 m) 3 4, 400 m² (20 x 20 m) 5, 800 m² (40 x 20 m) 6, 4,000 m²7.

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 4,000 m²7.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 20-30 m or 2,000-25,000 m² 2; storage tanks: 200 m² (10 x 20 m), 450 m² (15 x 30 m) 2; breeding tanks: 3.8 m² (2.5 x 1.5 m), 8 m² (4 x 2 m), 18.8 m² (7.5 x 2.5 m), 2 m diameter 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

2 Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: bottle hatching jars: 0.7 m 8.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: concrete tanks: 1 m 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.5-1.2 m 2, tanks: 1.2 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

JUVENILES: WILD: DEMERSAL 9, bottom feeder 10 11 12 13. Lake: range 4.8-18.4 m 14 with unclear depth range use. 0.2-0.5 m 15, 10 m 16-9. FARM: earthen ponds: 1.5 m 3 4 17 5. LAB: benthic habit (bottom feeders) 18 19.

ADULTS: WILD: DEMERSAL 9, bottom feeder 10 11 12 13. Lake: range 4.8-18.4 m 14 with unclear depth range use. 0-3.8 m 20 15, 10 m 16-9. FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.8-2 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

SPAWNERS WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 1.0-2.5 m or deeper depending on climate zone 2; storage tanks: 1.0-1.5 m 2; breeding tanks: 1 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

3 Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS 21.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: concrete tanks: 30.9-31.1 °C 1. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: 10-14 h PHOTOPERIOD, range 20-31 °C and mean 25.5-27.1 °C 14, fresh water 22 9. FARM: earthen ponds: 21-33 °C 3 4 17 7 5. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD: ➝ JUVENILES. FARM: earthen ponds: 22.5-33 °C 7. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 29.3 °C 8. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

4 Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.

What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of theses circumstances?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

WILD: mature at 2 years old 23 24 25. Spawn once per year 10 during the monsoon (rainy season) 24 10, between May-August 23 26-27 with a peak between June-July 28. Sex ratio: 1:1, small differences towards more females or more males may occur depending on age group 11. FARM: the induced breeding technique has been available for a long time 29; successful induced breeding 1 by hormonal injections 10 8 followed by stripping 8. Breeding techniques induce spawning twice or three times per breeding season 10. For carps in general, in storage tanks, spawners are kept separated by sex 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

5 Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: concrete tanks: better growth and survival at 500 than 1,500 IND/m² 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1,000 IND/m² for LARVAE in nursery ponds, 12.5-25 IND/m² for FRY in breeding ponds 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 1 IND/m² 3; 0.1-0.3 IND/m² in polyculture with 3-4 other cyprinids of overall density of 0.5-0.8 IND/m² 17 5, better growth at 0.2 than 0.3-0.5 IND/m² in a polyculture with 2 other carp species of overall density of 1.2-1.5 IND/m² 4. LAB: schooling behaviour 18.

ADULTS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 0.2 IND/m² 8.

6 Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.

What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: FARM: no aggression reported in polycultures with other cyprinids 7, as Labeo catla 4 17, Labeo rohita 4 17, Cirrhinus mrigala 17 and Barbonymus gonionotus 5, but competition is suspected to reduce growth 4 10. LAB: intraspecific competition in monoculture and interspecific competition in polyculture with C. mrigala, but no aggression is mentioned (better competitor than C. mrigala) 18 19.

ADULTS: FARM: no aggression reported in polycultures with other carps 7, but competition with other species (including Cirrhinus mrigala) 10.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

7 Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for carps in general, double-walled hapa nets (e.g., mosquito netting and whole cloth) to protect from predators 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 2.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: concrete tanks: 10 cm of soil base 1. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: DEMERSAL 9 and bottom feeder 10 11 12 13. Prefer rocky substrate, feeding on periphytic filamentous algae and diatoms 30. Found in river with bedrock, but also boulders, gravel, leaf litter 15. FARM: earthen ponds: 0.05-0.1 bamboo mats/m² (1 x 1 m) 5 or 0.03 bamboo mats/m² (2 x 1 m) 17 made of bamboo stripes and fixed with bamboo poles as periphyton substrate to feed on 17 5; 9.0-9.3 vertically planted bamboo poles/m² (1.6-2 m length, 0.8-5.5 cm ∅) as periphyton substrate and suggested to work as shelter or protection from predators 3 4. Earthen ponds: Secchi disc: 14-48 cm 3 4. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2. LAB: BENTHIC (bottom feeders) 18 19; perspex slides to collect periphyton to feed on, better growth at ≥400 than 100 cm² perspex slides/aquarium 31 32.

ADULTS: WILD: ➝ JUVENILES. FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: ➝ ADULTS.

8 Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).

What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by acidic water (pH 5.5) 33 34, which can be caused by manures and inorganic fertilisers 33. Extracts in the diet (≥0.1% of Eclipta Alba ethanol 33 or 0.5% of Cynodon dactylon methanol 34) reduced stress levels – also higher levels caused by acidic water.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.

9 Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE: for carps in general, malformations due to insufficient nutrition 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.

10 Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.

What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Common slaughter method: for Cirrhinus mrigala 35, Labeo catla 36, L. rohita 37, with which L. calbasu is commonly reared, asphyxia on ice. For the related Cyprinus carpio, 85% are sold alive, of the 15% processed in plants 38, the common methods are a) asphyxia (followed by evisceration 38 or percussive killing 39), b) percussive stunning (followed by evisceration 38 40, gill cut or destruction of the heart 40), and c) electrical stunning (followed by evisceration 38 40, gill cut or destruction of the heart 40). Further research needed to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well. High-standard slaughter method: for C. carpio, electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 40 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 39). Further research needed for a specific protocol and to determine whether this applies to L. calbasu as well.

Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.

What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 41, level 5 being fully domesticated.

Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.

To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes: WILD: herbivorous 10 11 12 16-9 42-9, detritivore 12, also reported as omnivorous 8, feeding mainly on decayed organic matter, aquatic plants and algae 10 12, and zooplankton 10. FARM: fed with sustainable sources 3 17 7 5, at times complemented with periphyton 3 17 5. LAB: fed on periphyton 31 32; fed on plankton when housed alone, but benthic macroinvertebrate consumption increased when housed with C. cirrhosus 18 19.

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 41
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Sahu, P. K., J. Jena, and P. C. Das. 2007. Nursery rearing of kalbasu, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton), at different stocking densities in outdoor concrete tanks. Aquaculture Research 38: 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01648.x.
2 Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
3 Wahab, M. A., M. E. Azim, M. H. Ali, M. C. M. Beveridge, and S. Khan. 1999. The potential of periphyton-based culture of the native major carp calbaush, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton). Aquaculture Research 30: 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1999.00337.x.
4 Azim, M. E, M. C. J Verdegem, M. M Rahman, M. A Wahab, A. A van Dam, and M. C. M Beveridge. 2002. Evaluation of polyculture of Indian major carps in periphyton-based ponds. Aquaculture 213: 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00029-7.
5 NOT FOUND
6 Sahu, P. K., J. Jena, and P. C. Das. 2021. Periphyton based grow-out farming of Indian major carps with Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) and Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) for better water quality and enhanced fish production. Aquaculture 533: 736118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736118.
7 Mohanty, B. R., M. Sahoo, P. K. Sahoo, K. D. Mahapatra, and J. N. Saha. 2014. Reference ranges and seasonal variations in innate immune responses of kalbasu, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton). Indian Journal of Fisheries 61: 57–62.
8 Hassan, M. M., M. Nahiduzzaman, S. N. Al Mamun, M. A. Taher, and M. A. R. Hossain. 2014. Fertilization by refrigerator stored sperm of the Indian major carp, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, 1822). Aquaculture Research 45: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2012.03214.x.
9 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2021. Labeo calbasu, Orangefin labeo: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
10 Mohanta, K. N., S. Subramanian, N. Komarpant, and S. Saurabh. 2008. Alternate carp species for diversiﬁcation in freshwater aquaculture in India. Aquaculture Asia magazine: 11–15.
11 Imran, S., D. N. Jha, S. Thakur, and A. C. Dwivedi. 2015. AGE STRUCTURE OF LABEO CALBASU (HAMILTON 1822) FROM RIVER YAMUNA. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India 47: 81–85. https://doi.org/10.47780/jifsi.47.2.2015.116814.
12 Laghari, A. M., N. T. Narejo, S. Jalbani, G. Dastagir, and P. Khan. 2015. STUDIES ON FOOD AND FEEDING HABITS OF CARP, LABEO CALBASU FROM KEENJHAR LAKE DISTRICT THATTA, SINDH, PAKISTAN. Sindh University Research Journal - SURJ (Science Series) 47: 79–82.
13 Dwivedi, A. C., and P. Nautiyal. 2021. Age and growth increment of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton 1822) from the Vindhyan region, Central India. International Journal of Aquaculture and Fishery Sciences 7: 10–13. https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-8400.000067.
14 Uddin, K. B., A. K. M. S. Islam, S. S. Basak, M. M. Rahman, M. A. Bashar, and Yahida Mahmud. 2014. Species composition and abundance of fishes in the brush shelter fishery of Kaptai Lake. Bangladesh Research Publications Journal 10: 233–237.
15 Arunachalam, M. 2000. Assemblage structure of stream fishes in the Western Ghats (India). Hydrobiologia 430: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004080829388.
16 Ahmad, Mohammad Farooq, and Mohammad Sadiq Niazi. 1988. Important edible fishes of Pakistan. Pakistan: Zoological Survey Department, Government of Pakistan.
17 Sahu, P. K., J. K. Jena, P. C. Das, S. Mondal, and R. Das. 2007. Production performance of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) in polyculture with three Indian major carps Catla catla (Hamilton), Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton) with provision of fertilizers, feed and periphytic substrate as varied inputs. Aquaculture 262: 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.11.016.
18 Rahman, M. M., and M. Verdegem. 2010. Effects of intra- and interspecific competition on diet, growth and behaviour of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) and Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 128: 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.015.
19 Rahman, M. M., and S. R. Balcombe. 2017. Competitive interactions under experimental conditions affect diel feeding of two common aquaculture fish species Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, 1822) and Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch, 1795) of southern Asia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 33: 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13157.
20 Kartha, K. N., and K. S. Rao. 1991. Vertical Distribution of Fish in Surface and Bottom Gill Nets Operated in Gandhisagar Reservoir. Fishery Technology 28.
21 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
22 Dwivedi, A. C., and P. Nautiyal. 2012. Stock assessment of fish species Labeo rohita, Tor tor and Labeo calbasu in the rivers of Vindhyan region, India. Journal of Environmental Biology 33: 261–264.
23 Azadi, M., and M.A. Kuddus. 1995. STUDIES ON THE AGE AND GROWTH OF A CARP, LABEO CALBASU (HAM.) (CYPRINIDAE : CYPRINIFORMES) FROM THE KAPTAI RESERVOIR, BANGLADESH. Chittagong University Studies, Part II: Science 19: 7–17.
24 Kamal, S., and W. S. Lakra. 2005. A comparative evaluation of age and growth of the cyprinid fish, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton-Buchanan) from different wild populations. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 75: 836–841.
25 Dwivedi, A. C., Anupama, B. Bisht, S. Khan, and P. Mayank. 2009. Studies on the age and growth of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) with an exploitation pattern from the Ganga River system, Uttar Pradesh (India). Journal of the Indian Fisheries Association 36: 47–53.
26 Mishra, S., and D. N. Saksena. 2012. Gonadosomatic index and fecundity of an Indian Major carp Labe calbasu in Gohad reservoir. The Bioscan 7: 43–46.
27 Hossain, Y., A. Hossen, N. U. Pramanik, F Nawer, Z. F. Ahmed, K. Yahya, M. Rahman, and J. Ohtomi. 2015. THREATENED FISHES OF THE WORLD: Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, 1822) (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Croatian Journal of Fisheries 73: 134–136. https://doi.org/10.14798/73.3.836.
28 Vahneichong, E, S. K. Das, A. Mondal, and D. Bhakta. 2018. Length-weight relationship, condition factor and gonado-somatic index of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, 1822). Journal of Fisheries 6: 645–649. https://doi.org/10.17017/jfish.v6i3.2018.269.
29 Saha, D., M. Nahiduzzaman, S. Akter, M. N. Islam, M. A. R. Hossain, and M. S. Alam. 2010. Bottleneck in the endangered kalibaus, Labeo calbasu (cyprinidae: cypriniformes) populations in Bangladesh revealed by microsatellite DNA marker analysis. Genes & Genomics 32: 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13258-010-0798-7.
30 Ponniah, A. G., and A. Gopalakrishnan, ed. 2000. Endemic fish diversity of Western Ghats. NBFGR-NATP 1. Lucknow, Utar Pradexe, India: National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources.
31 Rahman, M. M., M. M. Haque, N. T. Narejo, S. Islam, and S. M. Rahmatullah. 2007. Studies on periphyton grazing rate of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton). Indian Journal of Fisheries 54: 365–369.
32 Narejo, N. T., and S. M. Rahmatullah. 2010. Studies on the Grazing Rate of Culibaush, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) on Periphyton. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 42: 53–56.
33 Chanu, T. I., S. D. Roy, N. K. Chadha, K. D. Rawat, A. Sharma, and K. Kumar. Antistress Ability of Eclipta Alba Ethanol Extract in Labeo calbasu Fingerlings Exposed to Acid Stress. The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh: IJA_65.2013.837.
34 Chanu, T. I., S. D. Roy, N. K. Chadha, K. Dube, A. Sharma, A. K. Chaudhuri, and S. K. Singh. 2019. Cynodon dactylon methanol extract potentiates stress mitigation in response to acidic stress in Labeo calbasu fingerlings. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 89: 811–819.
35 Ayyappan, S. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Cirrhinus mrigala. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
36 Jena, J.K. 2009. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Catla catla. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
37 Jena, J. K. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Labeo rohita. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
38 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
39 Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
40 Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
41 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
42 Arunachalam, M., J. A. Johnson, A. Sankaranarayanan, R. Soranam, A. Manimekalan, and P. N. Shanthi. 2000. Cultivable and ornamental fishes of Manimuthar river, Tamil Nadu. In Endemic fish diversity of Western Ghats, 247–253. Lucknow, U.P., India: NBFGR-NATP Publication. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources,.

❮

❯

1 / 2

2 / 2

contents