Information
Version: C | 1.0 (2022-12-18)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
WelfareScore | farm
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)
General remarks
Luciobarbus callensis is a freshwater BENTHOPELAGIC fish that is naturally found in north-west Africa, being widespread from Tunisia to the Kebir River drainage in eastern Algeria. It is a subtropical barb inhabiting lentic aquatic ecosystems, but also running waters, thus including lakes, estuaries, but also rivers, with a high adaptability to some artificial systems. This species has adapted to life in the littoral of reservoirs and is considered a species of Least Concern by IUCN. L. callensis is an important cyprinid species for aquaculture purposes worldwide due to its abundance, availability all year round, tasteful flesh, and economic value. This barb is the basic catch of local fisheries in areas from north Algeria, being an important source of protein for the inhabitants of rural communities both in Algeria and Tunisia. Despite that, important wild information about this barb to better evaluate its welfare in captivity is still missing, like home range use, depth range use, and natural aggregation patterns. Furthermore, almost no farming information specifically about this species is available, making it difficult to assess and improve its welfare in farms.
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 low amount of evidence.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.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.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 low amount of evidence.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?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.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.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.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 3 22, 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:
Glossary
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 22
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
2 Penczak, T., and M. Molinski. 1984. Fish production in Oued Sebaou, a seasonal river in North Algeria. Journal of Fish Biology 25: 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1984.tb04918.x.
3 Kraiem, M. M. 1996. The diet of Barbus callensis (cyprinidae) in Northern, Tunisia. Cybium 20: 75–85.
4 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Luciobarbus callensis, Algerian barb: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
5 Mimeche, F., and F. J. Oliva-Paterna. 2018. Temporal variations in abundance and biomass of fish species inhabiting the K sob reservoir (Eastern of Algeria). Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, Biologia 63: 131–138.
6 Rouis, S. O., A. O. Rouis, H. J. Dumont, K. Magellan, and A. Arab. 2016. Dynamics and effects of Ligula intestinalis (L.) infection in the native fish Barbus callensis Valenciennes, 1842 in Algeria. Acta Parasitologica 61: 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0041.
7 Kraiem, M. M., and E. Pattee. 1988. Salinity tolerance of the barbel, Barbus callensis Valenciennes, 1842 (Pisces, Cyprinidae) and its ecological significance. Hydrobiologia 166: 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008135.
8 Mimeche, F., M. Biche, and F. J. Oliva-Paterna. 2012. Abundance, age and growth of the Algerian barbel in the Ksob reservoir (M’Sila, NE of Algeria). In IV Jornadas Ibéricas de Ictiología: V Jornades Ibèriques d’Ictiologia : situación actual y retos de futuro, 33. Universitat de Girona, Sociedad Ibérica de Ictiología.
9 Mimeche, F., M. Biche, A. Ruiz-Navarro, and F. J. Oliva-Paterna. 2013. The population structure, age and growth of Luciobarbus callensis (Cyprinidae) in a man-made lake in the Maghreb (NE Algeria). Limnetica 32: 391–404. https://doi.org/10.23818/limn.32.29.
10 Berrebi, P., M. M. Kraiem, I. Doadrio, S. El Gharbi, and G. Cattaneo-Berrebi. 1995. Ecological and genetic differentiation of Barbus callensis populations in Tunisia. Journal of Fish Biology 47: 850–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb06007.x.
11 Morsi, A., F. Mimeche, and M. Biche. 2015. Age structure and growth of Algerian barbel Luciobarbus callensis (Valenciennes, 1842) (Cyprinidae) in El-Harrach River (North of Algeria). AACL Bioflux 8: 475–484.
12 Mouaissia, W., N. Kaouachi, C. Boualleg, M. Tolba, N. Khelifi, F. Sahtout, and M. Bensouilah. 2017. Reproductive biology of Algerian barb Luciobarbus callensis (Valenciennes, 1842) (Cyprinidae) in Beni Haroun dam, north-east of Algeria 10: 1671–1682.
13 Aberkane, B., L. Touazi, and M. Iguer-ouada. 2018. Reproduction of Algerian Barbel Luciobarbus callensis (Cyprinidae) in the Agrioun River, Algeria. Journal of Ichthyology 58: 851–856. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945218060012.
14 Menasria, A., D. Barčák, N. Kaouachi, M. Bensouilah, T. Scholz, and J. S. Hernández-Orts. 2020. Redescription of Acanthogyrus (Acanthosentis) maroccanus (Dollfus, 1951) (Acanthocephala: Quadrigyridae), a parasite of the Algerian barb Luciobarbus callensis (Valenciennes) (Cyprinidae) in Algeria, and first molecular data. Journal of Helminthology 94: e82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X19000737.
15 Řehulková, E., I. Rahmouni, A. Pariselle, and A. Šimková. 2021. Integrating morphological and molecular approaches for characterizing four species of Dactylogyrus (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) from Moroccan cyprinids, with comments on their host specificity and phylogenetic relationships. PeerJ 9: e10867. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10867.
16 Habila, S., E. Leghouchi, A. Valdehita, A. Bermejo-Nogales, S. Khelili, and J. M. Navas. 2017. Induction of EROD and BFCOD activities in tissues of barbel (Barbus callensis) from a water reservoir in Algeria. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 142: 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.03.055.
17 Benaissa, H., A. Teixeira, M. Lopes-Lima, R. Sousa, S. Varandas, H. Rassam, and M. Ghamizi. 2019. Fish hosts of the freshwater mussel Unio foucauldianus Pallary, 1936. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29: 2176–2184. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3234.
18 Kottelat, Maurice, and Jörg Freyhof. 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
