Rainbow trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout)
Distribution
Distribution map: Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout)




Information


Authors: Jenny Volstorf, Maria Filipa Castanheira
Version: C | 2.0 (2022-12-27)

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


Reviewer: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

First published: 2016-11-26
Version information:
  • Appearance: C
  • Major version 2 published: 2022-12-27

Cite as: »Volstorf, Jenny, and Maria Filipa Castanheira. 2022. Oncorhynchus mykiss (Farm: Short Profile). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2016-11-26. Version C | 2.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Oncorhynchus mykiss
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


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

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

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



General remarks

Oncorhynchus mykiss is one of the dominant salmonids farmed in Europe and North America, second only to Salmo salar. In addition, it is one of the most widely studied model fish species in the wild and in captivity. Yet, the living conditions and the husbandry systems that maximise the welfare of this species are still to be defined, developed, and improved. This lack is quite incomprehensible, given the background and the availability of research performed on this species. The low FishEthoScore is mainly due to the need of space and substrate and to high levels of aggression, stress, and high deformations under farming conditions. Grow-out typically takes place in ponds or raceways, sometimes also in cages. There are two strains in O. mykiss: the anadromous one, also called Steelhead trout, and the potamodromous Rainbow trout. Aquaculture populations probably combine genes of both strains. In anadromous FISHES, throughout the life history, morphology, behaviour, and environmental requirements change. Husbandry systems and practices need to take such differences into account in order to achieve and maintain high welfare. The development of new rearing strategies to optimise the husbandry practices as well as handling with special care would be a step forward to solve some specific welfare concerns. Finally, providing feed which contains a lower amount of fish components from wild catch has proven feasible for this species in lab studies, so a protocol for application in farming conditions has to be developed.

Note: The name of the age classes differ in the two strains: LARVAE in Rainbow trout are called ALEVINS in Steelhead trout, JUVENILES in Rainbow trout are called PARR and SMOLTS in Steelhead trout, SPAWNERS in Rainbow trout are called GRILSE and KELTS in Steelhead trout. For consistency with other profiles, we will apply the usual age class structure of eggs, LARVAE, FRY, JUVENILES, ADULTS, SPAWNERS and make sure to signal the respective age class for Steelhead trout in the entries.




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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the range in captivity at least overlaps with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information in larvae, fry, and at sea (Steelhead trout) as well as farm information in spawners is missing.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: in the related Salmo salar, FRY move 1-5 m from the redd 1. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to O. mykiss as well.
  • FARM: tanks: 0.5-1.0 m3 2, 2 m ∅ 3, 4 m2 (2 x 2 m) 3, 0.5-1.4 m3 in 2.5 t production unit, 1.0-2.8 m3 in 5 t production unit 4.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: usually 0-3 km (Rainbow trout) 5 6 7. Majority of released hatchery-reared IND remained within 1-3 km of release site 8.
  • FARM: raceways: 24-90 m2 (2-3 m x 12-30 m) 3, 1,200 m2 9, 560-650 m2 10, 1,760 m2 (220 x 8 m) 11; ponds: 24-60 m2 (2-3 m x 12-30 m) 3, 1,300 m2 9, 300-1,000 m2 (30-50 x 10-20 m) 4, 360-1,040 m2 10; tanks: 4-25 m3 in 2.5 t production unit, 8-50 m3 in 5 t production unit 4; cages: 36 m2 (6 x 6 m) 3, 40-50 m ∅ (16,000-130,000 m3) 12.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: usually 1-15 km (Rainbow trout) 5 13 14 7. Non-native waters: lake: either used much of 33 km2 or stayed in bay (Rainbow trout) 15.
  • FARM JUVENILES.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: usually 0.7-4.6 km up- or downstream (Rainbow trout) 16.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: does not apply. ​



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, as the range in captivity at least overlaps with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: for depth of redd  SPAWNERS.
  • FARM: troughs: 0.2 m 3, 0.3-0.5 m 2.
  • LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILDALEVINS: moved to shallow areas after emerging from gravel (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: tanks: 0.1-0.2 m at first 18, 0.2-0.5 m 2, 0.5-0.6 m 3, 0.8-1 m 18.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: usually 0-5 m (Rainbow trout) 19 20 21 22. SMOLTS: at sea, majority within 1 m (Steelhead trout) 23-24.
  • FARM: raceways and ponds: 0.6-0.9 m 9, 0.8 m 11, 1-1.5 m 3 25 4; cages: 4-5 m 3, 40 m 26,10-50 m 12.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: usually 0-20 m 20 15 21. ≤100 m (Rainbow trout) 15KELTS: at sea, majority within 1 m (Steelhead trout) 23-24.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: build redd at 0.1 m (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARMno data found yet.
  • LAB: does not apply.



3  Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as both strains undertake extensive migrations, and we cannot be sure that providing each age class with their respective environmental conditions will satisfy their urge to migrate or whether they need to experience the transition. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Two strains: one ANADROMOUS ("Steelhead trout") 14 27, the other POTAMODROMOUS ("Rainbow trout") 14 16. EURYHALINE 17 24 28.

ANADROMOUS strain ("Steelhead trout"):

Eggs: does not apply.

ALEVINS and FRY:

  • WILD: in streams and rivers 29
  • FARM: fresh water 2 3 25.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

PARR and SMOLTS:

  • WILD: PARR: in fresh water for ≤4 years, performing upstream and downstream migrations 17. Migrate to sea to mature, some return as immature SMOLTS for another season 17 24 28
  • FARM: raceways: 10-22 °C (higher red bloodcell count and cortisol at higher temperatures) 30, fresh water 3 30; cages: 0-20 °C 12, fresh water or seawater 2 3, typically 33‰, but may be lower 12.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: at sea for 1-3 years 17 24
  • FARM: cages: 0-20 °C 12, fresh water or seawater 2 3, typically 33‰, but may be lower 12.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

GRILSE and KELTS:

  • WILD: migrate as GRILSE from sea to natal streams to spawn 17 24. Some return to sea as KELTS and spawn again in streams for second, third, fourth time 17.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: highest survival in warm brackish water (6-7 °C, 10-17‰) compared to sea- or fresh water 31.

POTAMODROMOUS strain ("Rainbow trout"):

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES :

  • WILD: fresh water 15 16.
  • FARM: raceways: 10-22 °C (higher red bloodcell count and cortisol at higher temperatures) 30, fresh water 3 30; cages: 0-20 °C 12, fresh water or seawater 2 3, typically 33‰, but may be lower 12.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD JUVENILES.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: move 20-26 km upstream to spawn 16.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: highest survival in warm brackish water (6-7 °C, 10-17‰) compared to sea- or fresh water 31.



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?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as natural spawning is possible, and small farms simulate natural spawning conditions and do not apply hormonal manipulation, but omitting of separation of males and females (to be able to court) as well as omitting of stripping needs to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: spawn at 2-7 years (Steelhead trout) 17, November-May in the Northern hemisphere and August-November in the Southern hemisphere 32 3. Sex ratio: 1:1 (Steelhead trout) 17. While female built nest, male either chased attending males or stimulated female (Steelhead trout) 33-17. Females are batch spawners (Steelhead trout) 17. For nest building  S1.
  • FARM: spawn for first time at second year for males, third year for females 18, are used at 3-4 years 3 or 1-6 years 18 or 2-7 years 2 or PHOTOPERIOD manipulation to spawn at 2 years 25. Spawn during autumn-winter 2 at sex ratio 1:1 2 or 1:2-3 male:female 3 25 18. Males and females are sometimes kept separated 3, other times not 2 and in yet other cases, they are kept together and only separated at first indication of being ready for spawning migration (to prevent spontaneous spawning) 18. Frequently, farmers use sex-reversed all-female IND to create all-female next generation 3. Feeding FRY hormones will produce functional males 3. Avoids applying hormone manipulation to marketed IND 3. No off-season production by PHOTOPERIOD or temperature manipulation 2, but large farms apply hormone manipulation to induce ovulation and spermiation 18. Small farms decrease water levels and increase water current to simulate natural conditions 18. Stripping (under anaesthesia) to get eggs and semen 2 3 25 18.
  • LAB: male courted female while she cut the redd 34. Lower egg weight and lower survival at eyeing, higher percentage of malformations in ALEVINS after PHOTOPERIOD manipulation of SPAWNERS compared to control 35.



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 low for minimal farming conditions, as – even in the absence of densities in the wild – we may conclude from laboratory studies that densities in raceways, cages, and some tanks are potentially stress inducing. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as lower stress at stocking densities in ponds and (some) tanks need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILDALEVINS: school (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: FRY: tanks: 2,000-5,000 IND/m2 36-18, 2.5-10 kg/m3 or 1,000-2,500 IND/m3 4.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILDPARR: moved solitarily downstream (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: raceways: 25-50 IND/m3 3, 50-55 kg/m3 9, 40-55 kg/m3 10; earthen ponds: 8-12 kg/m3 9, 3-8 kg/m3 or 10-240 IND/m3 4, 10-15 kg/m3, temporarily 30 kg/m3 10, 5-20 kg/m3 30; tanks: 10-25 kg/m3 or 30-800 IND/m3 4, 5-100 kg/m3 37; cages: 30-40 kg/m3 or 694.4-555.6 IND/m3 3.
  • LAB: more fin damage and erratic swimming and higher swimming activity day and night at 125 kg/m3 than 25 or 75 kg/m3 38. Higher growth at 25 kg/m3 than 100 kg/m3 39. Longer dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins at 10 kg/m3 than 40 or 80 kg/m3 40. Increased shoal cohesion in tanks enriched with PVC pipes, plastic plants, stones than in barren tanks probably indicating positive emotions 41.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: the related S. salar lives in schools during migration 42 43 44. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to O. mykiss as well.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: KELTS: after spawning, when not immediately gone to sea, congregated in small groups, not schools (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: <10 kg/m3 2, 6-7 IND/m2 18.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



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 low for minimal farming conditions, as aggression is present in all age classes, and size-grading does not seem to improve it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as innovations to decrease aggression by adding enrichment need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: aggressive and territorial (Steelhead trout) 45.
  • FARM: aggressive and territorial in size-graded groups 46. Cannibalistic with insufficient feeding rate 18. Competitive for food with higher fin erosion when fed 3 compared to 2 times/day possibly due to fin biting especially taking place during feeding 47.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: PARR: established territory (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: more aggressive with feeding schedule compared to free access regime 48.
  • LAB: aggressive in groups of 2 49 50 and 12 51. Territorial in groups of 12 51. Increasing fin damage with decreasing ration size (from 1.0-1.3% to 0.3-0.5% 52, from 1.5-2.0% to 0.5-1.0% 53), strongest hierarchy and food competition at ration size 0.3% 52. Highly attracted to enrichment through bubbles which decreased agonistic behaviour, burst of accelerations, and jumps before feeding compared to time as anticipatory stimulus 54. Enrichment with PVC pipes, plastic plants, and stones decreased agonistic and stereotypic behaviour compared to barren tanks 41.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARMaggressive 18.
  • LAB: for aggression and reproduction  S2.



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

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species uses substrate, but many or all farming facilities for each age class are devoid of it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions a) given earthen ponds which are not replaced by concrete or stone bottom, b) as improvements for spawners are unlikely, and c) as innovations for enrichment need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: in gravel (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems  S3.
  • LAB: after oviposition, female covered eggs in gravel 34.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: hatch in gravel (Rainbow trout) 55 56. ALEVINS: hatch in gravel (Steelhead trout) 17.
  • FARM: less fin erosion in raceways enriched with stones than without 57. Took shelter when tank was covered whereas scattered when not covered 58. For details of holding systems  S4 and S3.
  • LAB: less fin erosion in raceways enriched with gravel than without 59.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: found over small rubble to large boulders (Steelhead trout) 17. Took shelter in Chara vulgaris, silt, and clay (Rainbow trout) 19 or between boulders (Steelhead trout) 29.
  • FARM: raceways covered by net to protect from avian predators 11. Higher growth 60 61 and better tolerance of transferring to seawater when reared in cobble-bottom pond than in raceway 60 or in earthen pond than in asphalt-bottom pond 61. Ponds used to have pebble bottom, but have since been replaced by concrete or stone for easier cleaning 4. For details of holding systems  S4 and S3.
  • LAB: lower cortisol in IND in enclosures covered by plywood than in non-enclosed IND, probably due to protection from predation 62. Lower cortisol when tanks were occupationally enriched with randomly fired currents (meant to mimic natural conditions in rivers) than in barren tanks 63. Tanks: IND learned to associate bubbles with appearing for feeding (concluded from feed-anticipatory behaviour) representing effective occupational enrichment 54. Lower fin erosion, fear, neophobia as well as higher growth and boldness in tanks enriched with PVC pipes, plastic plants, and stones than in barren tanks 41. Lower swimming activity in enriched tanks probably indicates lower need to perform stereotypical activities as in impoverished tanks 41. For substrate and a) aggregation  S5, b) aggression  S6.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: found over small rubble (Steelhead trout) 17 to large boulders (Steelhead trout) 17 (Rainbow trout) 64. Rested in "tunnels" in Chara macrophyte beds (Rainbow trout) 15. Found with woody debris (Rainbow trout) 64, took shelter behind boulders or in undercut banks (Rainbow trout) 64.
  • FARM: higher growth and better tolerance of transferring to seawater when reared in earthen pond than in asphalt-bottom pond 61. For details of holding systems  S4 and S3.
  • LAB: lower cortisol when tanks were occupationally enriched with randomly fired currents (meant to mimic natural conditions in rivers) than in barren tanks 63.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: female cutts redd (Steelhead) 17 20 56 in medium to small gravel 17.
  • FARM: for stripping  S2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as innovations to reduce stress need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusions are based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: stressed by air exposure and temperature shock 65.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: regular grading during production cycle 3, usually harvested by lowering water level and netting (in ponds, raceways, tanks) 3 or crowding and pumping (in cages) 3 66. Transported to slaughter side usually by truck 66. Stressed by transport 67 68, less so if the transport water was supplemented with 5 g NaCl/L 67. Stressed by fin injuries 37. Raceways: monitoring weight by infrared technology was precise on average 11 and is potentially less stressful than capture-dependent sampling, as it is non-intrusive.
  • LAB: stressed by handling and injection with acid 69. Stressed by air exposure 70 71. Stressed by confinement 39 72 71 73 50, less so when exposed repeatedly 71 and by IND selected for low cortisol responsiveness 50. Stressed by transport 72, chasing 72, netting 74 72 75, novel object 69. Tanks: water cortisol levels can be used as a non-invasive method to measure stress 70. For stress and a) aggregation  S5, b) substrate  S1.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: usually harvested by lowering water level and netting (in ponds, raceways, tanks) 3 or crowding and pumping (in cages) 3 66. Transported to slaughter side usually by truck 66. Stressed by transport 68.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: stressed by handling 76, less so under anaesthesia, but may decrease duration of sperm motility 76.
  • LAB: 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 low for minimal farming conditions, as malformation rates exceed 10%. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some malformations result from conditions that may be changed (rearing intensity). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as improvement of the situation by adjusting conditions needs more proof.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: malformations in 5% 35. For malformations and reproduction  S2.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: deformed upper or lower jaw occasionally 17.
  • FARM: malformations of spine in 0-55% (mean 22%) 77, malformations in 84.7-85%, mainly of supraneural bones 9, malformations in 100%, mainly of neural arches and spines in pre-hemal and in cephalic vertebrae, with higher frequency of severe anomalies in intense than semi-intense rearing 10.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: deformed upper or lower jaw occasionally 17.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: 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 high for high-standard farming conditions, as a) percussive stunning followed by bleeding or b) electrical stunning followed by percussive killing or followed by bleeding induce unconsciousness fast, kill while still unconscious, and are verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: common slaughter method: asphyxia in air or on ice, carbon dioxide, hypothermia in ice slurry, each followed by evisceration (small IND) or exsanguination and evisceration (large IND) 66. In small farms, sold live or fresh locally 78, so probably asphyxia. High-standard slaughter method: percussive or electrical stunning followed by evisceration (small IND) or followed by exsanguination and evisceration (large IND) 66. Wet electrical stunning (and slaughter) in rotary stunning unit, followed by ice slurry 79, percussive or electrical stunning (the latter sometimes followed by percussive killing) 80, electrical stunning or percussive stunning with a non-penetrating bolt followed by bleeding 12.
  • LAB: no vigorous escape attempts, but longer time to loss of visual evoked responses and afterwards loss of all physical movement in crushed ice (at 2 °C) than at 14 or 20 °C 81. Wet and dry electrical stunning 82.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: common slaughter method: asphyxia in air or in ice, carbon dioxide, hypothermia in ice slurry, each followed by evisceration (small IND) or exsanguination and evisceration (large IND) 66. In small farms, sold live or fresh locally 78, so probably asphyxia. High-standard slaughter method: percussive or electrical stunning followed by evisceration (small IND) or followed by exsanguination and evisceration (large IND) 66. Wet electrical stunning (and slaughter) in rotary stunning unit, followed by ice slurry 79, percussive or electrical stunning (the latter sometimes followed by percussive killing) 80, electrical stunning or percussive stunning with a non-penetrating bolt followed by bleeding 12. Tendency of lower stress under electrical stunning followed by percussion than under asphyxia in carbon monoxide 83, asphyxia in air in between 83.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM ADULTS.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



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 5 84 85, fully domesticated. Cultured since late 19th century 3.




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: carnivorous (Rainbow trout) 86 87 19 (Rainbow and Steelhead trout) 62.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: FRY: fish meal in parallel to fish oil may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 88. JUVENILES: fish meal may be mostly* 89, fish oil party* replaced by sustainable sources 90. Fish meal in parallel to fish oil may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 88 or completely* if it had already been given for first feeding 7 months prior 91. ADULTS: fish meal may be mostly* replaced by sustainable sources 92.

*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%




Glossary


ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
ALEVINS = larvae until the end of yolk sac absorption, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
ANADROMOUS = migrating from the sea into fresh water to spawn
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 84
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FISHES = Using "fishes" instead of "fish" for more than one individual - whether of the same species or not - is inspired by Jonathan Balcombe who proposed this usage in his book "What a fish knows". By referring to a group as "fishes", we acknowledge the individuals with their personalities and needs instead of an anonymous mass of "fish".
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
GRILSE = adults returning from sea to home river to spawn, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
KELTS = adults surviving spawning, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PARR = juvenile stage in rivers, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SMOLTS = juvenile stage migrating to the sea, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild



Bibliography


1 Gustafson-Greenwood, Karla I., and John R. Moring. 1990. Territory size and distribution of newly-emerged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Hydrobiologia 206: 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018638.
2 Okumuş, İbrahim. 2002. Rainbow Trout Broodstock Management and Seed Production in Turkey: Present Practices, Constraints and the Future. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2: 16.
3 Cowx, I. G. 2005. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Oncorhynchus mykiss. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
4 Woynarovich, András, György Hoitsy, and Thomas Moth-Poulsen. 2011. Small-scale rainbow trout farming. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 561. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
5 Erman, Don C., and George R. Leidy. 1975. Downstream Movement of Rainbow Trout Fry in a Tributary Sagehen Creek, under Permanent and Intermittent Flow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104: 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1975)104<467:DMORTF>2.0.CO;2.
6 Mitro, Matthew G., and Alexander V. Zale. 2002. Seasonal Survival, Movement, and Habitat Use of Age-0 Rainbow Trout in the Henrys Fork of the Snake River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<0271:SSMAHU>2.0.CO;2.
7 Mellina, Eric, Scott G. Hinch, Kirsten D. MacKenzie, and Greg Pearson. 2005. Seasonal Movement Patterns of Stream-Dwelling Rainbow Trout in North-Central British Columbia, Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 1021–1037. https://doi.org/10.1577/T03-188.1.
8 Cocherell, Sarah A., Gardner J. Jones, Javier B. Miranda, Dennis E. Cocherell, Joseph J. Cech, Lisa C. Thompson, and A. Peter Klimley. 2010. Distribution and movement of domestic rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, during pulsed flows in the South Fork American River, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 89: 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-010-9701-2.
9 Pulcini, D., C. Boglione, E. Palamara, and S. Cataudella. 2010. Use of meristic counts and skeletal anomalies to assess developmental plasticity of farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum 1792): a preliminary study. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26: 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01425.x.
10 Boglione, Clara, Domitilla Pulcini, Michele Scardi, Elisa Palamara, Tommaso Russo, and Stefano Cataudella. 2014. Skeletal Anomaly Monitoring in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss , Walbaum 1792) Reared under Different Conditions. PLOS ONE 9: e96983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096983.
11 Bolzonella, Matteo, Edouard Royer, Adriano C. Lima, and Roberto Pastres. 2022. Predicting farmed rainbow trout weight distribution to improve feeding practice: an individual-based model approach. Open Research Europe.
12 Noble, C., K. Gismervik, M.H. Iversen, J. Kolarevic, J. Nilsson, L.H. Stien, and J. F. Turnbull, ed. 2020. Welfare Indicators for farmed rainbow trout: tools for assessing fish welfare.
13 Gido, Keith B., Robert D. Larson, and Lief A. Ahlm. 2000. Stream-Channel Position of Adult Rainbow Trout Downstream of Navajo Reservoir, New Mexico, Following Changes inReservoir Release. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0250:SCPOAR>2.0.CO;2.
14 Meka, J, E. Knudsen, D. Douglas, and R. Benter. 2003. Variable migratory patterns of different adult rainbow trout life history types in a southwest Alaska watershed. Journal Articles 132.
15 James, G. D., and J. R. M. Kelso. 1995. Movements and habitat preference of adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a New Zealand montane lake. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1995.9516682.
16 Venman, Mark R., and Michel Dedual. 2005. Migratory behaviour of spawning rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Tongariro River, New Zealand, after habitat alteration. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 951–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2005.9517365.
17 Shapovalov, Leo, and Alan C. Taft. 1954. The Life Histories of the Steelhead Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and Silver Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) With Special Reference to Waddell Creek, California, and Recommendations Regarding Their Management. Fish Bulletin 98. State of California Department of Fish and Game.
18 Hoitsy, György, András Woynarovich, and Thomas Moth-Poulsen. 2012. Guide to the small scale artificial propagation of trout. Budapest: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
19 Riehle, Michael D., and J. S. Griffith. 1993. Changes in Habitat Use and Feeding Chronology of Juvenile Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Fall and the Onset of Winter in Silver Creek, Idaho. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 2119–2128. https://doi.org/10.1139/f93-237.
20 Vondracek, B., and D. R. Longanecker. 1993. Habitat selection by rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in a California stream: implications for the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2: 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.1993.tb00100.x.
21 Matthews, K. R., and N. H. Berg. 1997. Rainbow trout responses to water temperature and dissolved oxygen stress in two southern California stream pools. Journal of Fish Biology 50: 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01339.x.
22 Ebersole, J. L., W. J. Liss, and C. A. Frissell. 2001. Relationship between stream temperature, thermal refugia and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams in the northwestern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0633.2001.100101.x.
23 Ruggerone, G., and T. P. Quinn. 1989. Unpublished data.
24 Light, Jeffrey T, Cohn K Harris, and Robert L Burgner. 1989. Ocean distribution and migration of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, formerly Salmo gairdneri). Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. FRI-UW-8912. Seattle: FisheriesResearch Institute, University of Washington.
25 Jokumsen, Alfred, and Lars M Svendsen. 2010. Farming of Freshwater Rainbow Trout in Denmark. DTU-Aqua Rapport 219: 51.
26 Cardia, Francesco, and Alessandro Lovatelli. 2015. Aquaculture operations in floating HDPE cages: a field handbook. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 593. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
27 Riva Rossi, Carla, Milagros Arguimbau, and Miguel Pascual. 2003. The spawning migration of anadromous rainbow trout in the Santa Cruz River, Patagonia (Argentina) through radio-tracking. Ecología austral 13: 151–159.
28 Hayes, Sean A., Morgan H. Bond, Chad V. Hanson, Andrew W. Jones, Arnold J. Ammann, Jeffrey A. Harding, Alison L. Collins, Jeffrey Perez, and R. Bruce MacFarlane. 2011. Down, up, down and “smolting” twice? Seasonal movement patterns by juvenile steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a coastal watershed with a bar closing estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 1341–1350. https://doi.org/10.1139/f2011-062.
29 Bradford, Michael J, and Paul S Higgins. 2001. Habitat-, season-, and size-specific variation in diel activity patterns of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-253.
30 Uiuiu, Paul, Călin Lațiu, Tudor Păpuc, Cristina Craioveanu, Andrada Ihuț, Alexandru Sava, Camelia Răducu, et al. 2021. Multi-Approach Assessment for Stress Evaluation in Rainbow Trout Females, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) from Three Different Farms during the Summer Season. Animals 11: 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061810.
31 Albrektsen, S., and O. Torrissen. 1988. Physiological changes in blood and seminal plasma during the spawning period of maturing rainbow trout held under different temperature and salinity regimes, and the effect on survival of the broodstock and the eyed eggs. Nofima.
32 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2020. Oncorhynchus mykiss, Rainbow trout: fisheries, aquaculture, gamefish. www.fishbase.org. https://www.fishbase.de/summary/Oncorhynchus-mykiss.html. Accessed August 12.
33 Needham, P. R., and Alan C. Taft. 1934. Observations on the spawning of steelhead trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 64: 332–338.
34 Tautz, A. F., and C. Groot. 1975. Spawning Behavior of Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-081.
35 Bonnet, Emilie, Alexis Fostier, and Julien Bobe. 2007. Characterization of rainbow trout egg quality: A case study using four different breeding protocols, with emphasis on the incidence of embryonic malformations. Theriogenology 67: 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.10.008.
36 Hoitsy, György. 2002. A Pisztráng tenyésztése és horgászata.
37 Weirup, Lina, Carsten Schulz, Henrike Seibel, and Johan Aerts. 2021. Scale cortisol is positively correlated to fin injuries in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) reared in commercial flow through systems. Aquaculture 543: 736924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736924.
38 Bégout Anras, Marie-Laure, and Jean Paul Lagardère. 2004. Measuring cultured fish swimming behaviour: first results on rainbow trout using acoustic telemetry in tanks. Aquaculture 240: 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.02.019.
39 Pickering, A. D., T. G. Pottinger, J. P. Sumpter, J. F. Carragher, and P. Y. Le Bail. 1991. Effects of acute and chronic stress on the levels of circulating growth hormone in the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. General and Comparative Endocrinology 83: 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-6480(91)90108-I.
40 North, B. P., J. F. Turnbull, T. Ellis, M. J. Porter, H. Migaud, J. Bron, and N. R. Bromage. 2006. The impact of stocking density on the welfare of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 255: 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.01.004.
41 Brunet, Valentin, Aude Kleiber, Amélie Patinote, Pierre-Lô Sudan, Cécile Duret, Guillaume Gourmelen, Emmanuelle Moreau, et al. 2022. Positive welfare effects of physical enrichments from the nature-, functions- and feeling- based approaches in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 550: 737825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737825.
42 Fried, Stephen M., James D. McCleave, and George W. LaBar. 1978. Seaward Migration of Hatchery-Reared Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar, Smolts in the Penobscot River Estuary, Maine: Riverine Movements. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35: 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1139/f78-011.
43 McCormick, Stephen D, Lars P Hansen, Thomas P Quinn, and Richard L Saunders. 1998. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1139/d98-011.
44 Riley, W. D., A. T. Ibbotson, D. L. Maxwell, P. I. Davison, W. R. C. Beaumont, and M. J. Ives. 2014. Development of schooling behaviour during the downstream migration of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts in a chalk stream. Journal of Fish Biology 85: 1042–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12457.
45 Tatara, Christopher P, Stephen C Riley, and Julie A Scheurer. 2008. Environmental enrichment in steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hatcheries: field evaluation of aggression, foraging, and territoriality in natural and hatchery fry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 744–753. https://doi.org/10.1139/f08-004.
46 Berejikian, Barry A, E Paul Tezak, Thomas A Flagg, Anita L LaRae, Eric Kummerow, and Conrad VW Mahnken. 2000. Social dominance, growth, and habitat use of age-0 steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) grown in enriched and conventional hatchery rearing environments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 628–636. https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-288.
47 Klíma, Ondřej, Lukáš Kohút, Jan Mareš, and Radovan Kopp. 2018. The Effect of Feeding Frequency on the Fin Condition in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 66: 669–675. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201866030669.
48 Noble, C., K. Mizusawa, K. Suzuki, and M. Tabata. 2007. The effect of differing self-feeding regimes on the growth, behaviour and fin damage of rainbow trout held in groups. Aquaculture 264: 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.028.
49 Øverli, Øyvind, Charmaine A. Harris, and Svante Winberg. 1999. Short-term effects of fights for social dominance and the establishment of dominant-subordinate relationships on brain monoamines and cortisol in rainbow trout. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 54: 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1159/000006627.
50 Basic, D., S. Winberg, J. Schjolden, Å. Krogdahl, and E. Höglund. 2012. Context-dependent responses to novelty in Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), selected for high and low post-stress cortisol responsiveness. Physiology & Behavior 105: 1175–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.12.021.
51 Toobaie, Asra, and James W. A. Grant. 2013. Effect of food abundance on aggressiveness and territory size of juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Animal Behaviour 85: 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.032.
52 Moutou, K. A., I. D. McCarthy, and D. F. Houlihan. 1998. The effect of ration level and social rank on the development of fin damage in juvenile rainbow trout. Journal of Fish Biology 52: 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb00818.x.
53 Gregory, T Ryan, and Chris M Wood. 1999. Interactions between individual feeding behaviour, growth, and swimming performance in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed different rations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1139/f98-186.
54 Kleiber, Aude, Jean-Michel Le-Calvez, Thierry Kerneis, Axel Batard, Lionel Goardon, Laurent Labbé, Valentin Brunet, et al. 2022. Positive effects of bubbles as a feeding predictor on behaviour of farmed rainbow trout. Scientific Reports 12: 11368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15302-7.
55 Sowden, Terry K., and G. Power. 1985. Prediction of Rainbow Trout Embryo Survival in Relation to Groundwater Seepage and Particle Size of Spawning Substrates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 804–812. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1985)114<804:PORTES>2.0.CO;2.
56 Workman, R. D., Daniel B. Hayes, and Thomas G. Coon. 2004. Spawning Habitat Selection by Rainbow Trout in the Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 30: 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(04)70357-3.
57 Bosakowski, Thomas, and Eric J. Wagner. 1995. Experimental use of cobble substrates in concrete raceways for improving fin condition of cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki) and rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Aquaculture 130: 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00223-B.
58 Becket, Kristen H, and Michael Barnes. 2015. Rearing with overhead cover influences rainbow trout behavior. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 94: 187–193.
59 Arndt, Ronney E., M. Douglas Routledge, Eric J. Wagner, and Roger F. Mellenthin. 2001. Influence of Raceway Substrate and Design on Fin Erosion and Hatchery Performance of Rainbow Trout. North American Journal of Aquaculture 63: 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8454(2001)063<0312:IORSAD>2.0.CO;2.
60 Zydlewski, Gayle B., J. Scott Foott, Kenneth Nichols, Scott Hamelberg, Joseph Zydlewski, and Björn Thrandur Björnsson. 2003. Enhanced smolt characteristics of steelhead trout exposed to alternative hatchery conditions during the final months of rearing. Aquaculture 222. Salmonid Smoltification: 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00105-4.
61 Tipping, Jack M. 2008. Adult Returns of Hatchery Steelhead Juveniles Reared in Earthen- and Asphalt-Bottom Ponds. North American Journal of Aquaculture 70: 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1577/A07-017.1.
62 McMichael, Geoffrey A., Cameron S. Sharpe, and Todd N. Pearsons. 1997. Effects of Residual Hatchery-Reared Steelhead on Growth of Wild Rainbow Trout and Spring Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126<0230:EORHRS>2.3.CO;2.
63 Villarroel, Morris, Genaro C. Miranda-de la Lama, Rubén Bermejo-Poza, Concepción Pérez, Elisabet González-de Chávarri, Fernando Torrent, and Jesús De la Fuente. 2021. Effects of Randomly Fired Underwater Currents as an Occupational Enrichment Program in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Water 13: 3057. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213057.
64 Meyer, K. A., and J. S. Gregory. 2000. Evidence of concealment behavior by adult rainbow trout and brook trout in winter. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2000.eff090302.x.
65 Barry, T. P., J. A. Malison, J. A. Held, and J. J. Parrish. 1995. Ontogeny of the cortisol stress response in larval rainbow trout. General and Comparative Endocrinology 97: 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1006/gcen.1995.1006.
66 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed fish: Rainbow Trout. EFSA Journal 7: 1012. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1012.
67 Tacchi, Luca, Liam Lowrey, Rami Musharrafieh, Kyle Crossey, Erin T. Larragoite, and Irene Salinas. 2015. Effects of transportation stress and addition of salt to transport water on the skin mucosal homeostasis of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 435: 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.027.
68 Shabani, Fazli, Ulf Erikson, Elvira Beli, and Agim Rexhepi. 2016. Live transport of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and subsequent live storage in market: Water quality, stress and welfare considerations. Aquaculture 453: 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.040.
69 Sneddon, Lynne U, Victoria A Braithwaite, and Michael J Gentle. 2003. Novel object test: examining nociception and fear in the rainbow trout. The Journal of Pain 4: 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1067/S1526-5900(03)00717-X.
70 Ellis, T., J. D. James, C. Stewart, and A. P. Scott. 2004. A non-invasive stress assay based upon measurement of free cortisol released into the water by rainbow trout. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1233–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00499.x.
71 Jentoft, Sissel, Are H. Aastveit, Peter A. Torjesen, and Øivind Andersen. 2005. Effects of stress on growth, cortisol and glucose levels in non-domesticated Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and domesticated rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 141: 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpb.2005.06.006.
72 Kubi̇lay, Ayşegül, and Gülşen Uluköy. 2002. The effects of acute stress on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Turkish Journal of Zoology 26: 249–254.
73 Karakatsouli, Nafsika, Sofronios E. Papoutsoglou, Georgios Panopoulos, Eustratios S. Papoutsoglou, Stella Chadio, and Dimitris Kalogiannis. 2008. Effects of light spectrum on growth and stress response of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss reared under recirculating system conditions. Aquacultural Engineering 38: 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2007.10.006.
74 Vijayan, M. M., and T. W. Moon. 1992. Acute Handling Stress Alters Hepatic Glycogen Metabolism in Food-Deprived Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 2260–2266. https://doi.org/10.1139/f92-247.
75 Hoskonen, Petri, and Juhani Pirhonen. 2006. Effects of repeated handling, with or without anaesthesia, on feed intake and growth in juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Aquaculture Research 37: 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01448.x.
76 Wagner, Eric, Ronney Arndt, and Blaine Hilton. 2002. Physiological stress responses, egg survival and sperm motility for rainbow trout broodstock anesthetized with clove oil, tricaine methanesulfonate or carbon dioxide. Aquaculture 211: 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00878-X.
77 Deschamps, M. -H., A. Kacem, R. Ventura, G. Courty, P. Haffray, F. J. Meunier, and J. -Y. Sire. 2008. Assessment of “discreet” vertebral abnormalities, bone mineralization and bone compactness in farmed rainbow trout. Aquaculture 279: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.03.036.
78 D’Agaro, Edo, PierPaolo Gibertoni, and Stefano Esposito. 2022. Recent Trends and Economic Aspects in the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Sector. Applied Sciences 12: 8773. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178773.
79 Lines, J. A., D. H. Robb, S. C. Kestin, S. C. Crook, and T. Benson. 2003. Electric stunning: a humane slaughter method for trout. Aquacultural Engineering 28: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(03)00021-9.
80 Jung-Schroers, Verena, Uta Hildebrandt, Karina Retter, Karl-Heinz Esser, John Hellmann, Dirk Willem Kleingeld, Karl Rohn, and Dieter Steinhagen. 2020. Is humane slaughtering of rainbow trout achieved in conventional production chains in Germany? Results of a pilot field and laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02412-5.
81 Kestin, S. C., S. B. Wotton, and N. G. Gregory. 1991. Effect of slaughter by removal from water on visual evoked activity in the brain and reflex movement of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The Veterinary Record 128: 443–446.
82 Robb, D. H. F, M O’ Callaghan, J. A Lines, and S. C Kestin. 2002. Electrical stunning of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): factors that affect stun duration. Aquaculture 205: 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00677-9.
83 Concollato, Anna, Rolf Erik Olsen, Sheyla Cristina Vargas, Antonio Bonelli, Marco Cullere, and Giuliana Parisi. 2016. Effects of stunning/slaughtering methods in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from death until rigor mortis resolution. Aquaculture 464: 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.06.009.
84 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.
85 Teletchea, Fabrice. 2015. Domestication of Marine Fish Species: Update and Perspectives. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3: 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3041227.
86 Rowe, D. K. 1984. Factors affecting the foods and feeding patterns of lake‐dwelling rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii) in the North Island of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 18: 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1984.9516036.
87 Kusabs, Ian A., and Stephen Swales. 1991. Diet and food resource partitioning in koaro, Galaxias brevipinnis (Günther), and juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Richardson), in two Taupo streams, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 25: 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1991.9516485.
88 Lazzarotto, Viviana, Françoise Médale, Laurence Larroquet, and Geneviève Corraze. 2018. Long-term dietary replacement of fishmeal and fish oil in diets for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Effects on growth, whole body fatty acids and intestinal and hepatic gene expression. PLOS ONE 13: e0190730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190730.
89 Gomes, Emídio F., Paulo Rema, and Sadasivam J. Kaushik. 1995. Replacement of fish meal by plant proteins in the diet of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): digestibility and growth performance. Aquaculture 130: 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00211-6.
90 Örnek, Eda, Ümit Acar, and Mustafa Öğütcü. 2021. Effects of dietary fish oil replacement by poppy seed oil on growth performance and fillet quality of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture Research 52: 3026–3037. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15147.
91 Geurden, Inge, Peter Borchert, Mukundh N. Balasubramanian, Johan W. Schrama, Mathilde Dupont-Nivet, Edwige Quillet, Sadasivam J. Kaushik, Stéphane Panserat, and Françoise Médale. 2013. The Positive Impact of the Early-Feeding of a Plant-Based Diet on Its Future Acceptance and Utilisation in Rainbow Trout. PLOS ONE 8: e83162. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083162.
92 Voorhees, Jill M., Michael E. Barnes, Steven R. Chipps, and Michael L. Brown. 2019. Bioprocessed soybean meal replacement of fish meal in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) diets. Edited by Pedro González-Redondo. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5: 1579482. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1579482.


contents
show all details
«