Version: B | 1.1 (2022-06-23)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
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)
Oreochromis niloticus is a very resilient and well-known species to the aquaculture industry. However, it requires a series of features to ensure its welfare in farming conditions. Intensive farming may disrupt natural reproductive cycles and fails to ensure that proper substrate and shelter are provided. Semi-intensive culture respect some spatial and habitat needs, but most industrial farming, especially in floating cages, does not. Although a remarkable amount of research has been conducted, another issue that needs to be tackled is wild-caught fish for feed. This should be replaced by fish slaughterhouse waste and other sources or avoided by extensive farming fully based on sustainable sources.
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?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES:
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 high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
LARVAE: WILD: maternally mouthbred 1 2 3 4 5, usually in shallow habitats 10 6. FARM: nursery concrete tanks: 0.5-2 m 8; earthen ponds: ca 1 m 8; intensive artificial larval rearing systems: ca 20 cm 8.
JUVENILES: WILD: usually 0-6.7 m 11 3, occasionally below 30 m 12. Move deeper with decreasing water temperatures and shallower with increasing water temperatures 13. FARM: grow-out concrete tanks: 1-2 m 13 8; ponds: 0.5-3 m 13 8; cages: 2-4 m 8.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES
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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
JUVENILES: WILD: fresh water, perform temperature-related depth displacements 13. FARM: reared in fresh water 8 7. White light increased ventilatory frequency after confinement 16. For details of holding systems ➝ crit 1 and 2.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
WILD: breed in a lek system: many males gather in an arena to display to females around it. Each male digs and defends a pit in sandy substrate where he performs elaborate behaviours, changes colour and sometimes chases females into the pit. One female then lays the eggs in the pit, the male fertilizes the clutch and the female grabs the fertilized eggs with her mouth, swimming away 6 17 18 19. FARM: spawns easily and spontaneously in hapas, earthen ponds and concrete tanks 8 (although these lack substrate) but not in floating cages - which therefore are not used for spawning 7.
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?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
LARVAE: WILD: maternally mouthbred 1 2 3 4 5, spend early life stages in same-age group of siblings 5. Fry form large schools 20. FARM: extensive and semi-intensive systems: eggs hatch and larvae develop with mothers in spawning tanks or ponds 8; artificial hatching systems in intensive rearing: 2-10 fry/L 21.
JUVENILES: WILD: live in groups of unknown, variable sizes in the wild 6 10 5. FARM: form groups in captivity 22 23. Semi-intensive ponds: 1-3 juveniles/m2; raceways and floating cages: 200-300 juveniles/m3 7. LAB: increased stress in groups of 10 IND than in singly-held IND or pairs, lower growth in groups of 5 or 10 IND, probably indicating crowding stress 24.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
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. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
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. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
LARVAE: no influence of intense inbreeding on fry malformation rates: 3-8% 40.
JUVENILES: low rate (1.5-2.7%) of skeletal deformities (lateral projections of the mandible, 'parrot-like head', scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, fusion of dorsal and anal fins) 41 when compared to other farmed species such as sea bass (30%) 42, sea bream (>10%) 43 or catfish (5%) 41.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
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. Our conclusion is based on a high 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 5 49, 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)?
WILD: Omnivorous 11 12 33 50. FARM: fish feed and fish oil may be mostly* 51 or completely* replaced by non-forage fishery products 52 53 54 , especially in integrated farming 8 or non-industrial practices (urban aquaponic) 55.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 49
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
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
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
2 Peterson, Mark S., William T. Slack, Nancy J. Brown-Peterson, Jennifer L. McDonald, and C. M. Taylor. 2004. Reproduction in Nonnative Environments: Establishment of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, in Coastal Mississippi Watersheds. Copeia 2004: 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1643/CE-04-134R1.
3 Komolafe, O. O., and G. a. O. Arawomo. 2007. Reproductive strategy of Oreochromis niloticus (Pisces: Cichlidae) in Opa reservoir, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Revista de Biología Tropical 55: 595–602.
4 Tacon, P., P. Ndiaye, C. Cauty, F. Le Menn, and B. Jalabert. 1996. Relationships between the expression of maternal behaviour and ovarian development in the mouthbrooding cichlid fish Oreochromis Niloticus. Aquaculture 146: 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(96)01389-0.
5 Turner, G. F., and R. L. Robinson. 2000. Reproductive biology, mating systems and parental care. In Tilapias: Biology and Exploitation, ed. Malcolm C. M. Beveridge and Brendan J. McAndrew, 33–58. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
6 McConnell, Rosemary H. Lowe. 1959. Breeding behaviour patterns and ecological differences between tilapia species and their significance for evolution within the genus tilapia (Pisces: Cichlidae). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 132: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1959.tb05510.x.
7 Rakocy, J.E. 2005. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Oreochromis niloticus. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
8 El-Sayed, A.-F.M. 2006. Tilapia culture. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.
9 Kohda, Masanori. 1995. Territoriality of male cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 4: 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.1995.tb00031.x.
10 Balirwa, J. S. 1998. Lake Victoria wetlands and the ecology of the Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus Linne. Ph.D. dissertation, Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Agricultural University.
11 Bwanika, G. N., B. Makanga, Y. Kizito, L. J. Chapman, and J. Balirwa. 2004. Observations on the biology of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus L., in two Ugandan crater lakes. African Journal of Ecology 42: 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00468.x.
12 Njiru, M., J. E. Ojuok, J. B. Okeyo-Owuor, M. Muchiri, M. J. Ntiba, and I. G. Cowx. 2006. Some biological aspects and life history strategies of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.) in Lake Victoria, Kenya: Biology of Nile tilapia in Lake Victoria. African Journal of Ecology 44: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00610.x.
13 El-Sayed, A-F M, A El-Ghobashy, and M Al-Amoudi. 1996. Effects of pond depth and water temperature on the growth, mortality and body composition of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Aquaculture Research 27: 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1996.00776.x.
14 Trewavas, Ethelwynn. 1983. Tilapiine Fishes of the Genera Sarotherodon, Oreochromis and Danakilia. [Published in cooperation with] British Museum (Natural History) [by] Comstock Pub. Associates, a division of Cornell University Press.
15 Philippart, J.-Cl., and J.-Cl. Ruwet. 1982. Ecology and Distribution of Tilapias. In The Biology and Culture of Tilapias: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Biology and Culture of Tilapias, 2-5 September 1980 at the Study and Conference Center of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio, Italy, ed. Roger S. V. Pullin and R. H. Lowe-McConnell, 15–59. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 7. WorldFish.
16 Maia, Caroline Marques, and Gilson Luiz Volpato. 2013. Environmental light color affects the stress response of Nile tilapia. Zoology 116: 64–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2012.08.001.
17 Uchida, Hiroshi, Satoshi Ogawa, Mina Harada, Masato Matushita, Munehico Iwata, Yasuo Sakuma, and Ishwar S. Parhar. 2005. The olfactory organ modulates gonadotropin-releasing hormone types and nest-building behavior in the tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Journal of Neurobiology 65: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/neu.20156.
18 Castro, A. L. S., E. Gonçalves-de-Freitas, G. L. Volpato, and C. Oliveira. 2009. Visual communication stimulates reproduction in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 42: 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2009000400009.
19 Mendonça, F. Z., G. L. Volpato, R. S. Costa-Ferreira, and E. Gonçalves-de-Freitas. 2010. Substratum choice for nesting in male Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Journal of Fish Biology 77: 1439–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02754.x.
20 Henry, Sam D., Sam W. Barkley, and Ronald L. Johnson. 2005. Exploitation of Nile Tilapia in a Closed-System Public Fishing Reservoir in Northern Arkansas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1577/M04-084.1.
21 Rana, Krishen. 1988. Reproductive Biology and the Hatchery Rearing of Tilapia Eggs and Fry. In Recent Advances in Aquaculture, ed. James F. Muir and Ronald J. Roberts, 343–406. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
22 Delcourt, Johann, Christophe Becco, Nicolas Vandewalle, and Pascal Poncin. 2009. A video multitracking system for quantification of individual behavior in a large fish shoal: Advantages and limits. Behavior Research Methods 41: 228–235. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.228.
23 Zhao, Jian, Zhaobin Gu, Mingming Shi, Huanda Lu, Jianping Li, Mingwei Shen, Zhangying Ye, and Songming Zhu. 2016. Spatial behavioral characteristics and statistics-based kinetic energy modeling in special behaviors detection of a shoal of fish in a recirculating aquaculture system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 127: 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.06.025.
24 Barcellos, Leonardo José Gil, S. Nicolaiewsky, S M G. De Souza, and F. Lulhier. 1999. The effects of stocking density and social interaction on acute stress response in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.) fingerlings. Aquaculture Research 30: 887–892. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1999.00419.x.
25 Barki, Assaf, and Gilson Volpato. 1998. Early Social Environment and the Fighting Behaviour of Young Oreochromis Niloticus (Pisces, Cichlidae). Behaviour 135: 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853998792640332.
26 Volpato, G. L., A. C. Luchiari, C. R. A. Duarte, R. E. Barreto, and G. C. Ramanzini. 2003. Eye color as an indicator of social rank in the fish Nile tilapia. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 36: 1659–1663. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2003001200007.
27 Barreto, Rodrigo Egydio, and Gilson Luiz Volpato. 2006. Ventilatory frequency of Nile tilapia subjected to different stressors. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 43: 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeas.2006.05.001.
28 Pinho-Neto, Candido Ferreira, Caio Akira Miyai, Fabio Henrique Carretero Sanches, Percilia Cardoso Giaquinto, Helton Carlos Delicio, Leonardo José Gil Barcellos, Gilson Luiz Volpato, and Rodrigo Egydio Barreto. 2014. Does sex influence intraspecific aggression and dominance in Nile tilapia juveniles? Behavioural Processes 105: 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.02.003.
29 Corrêa, S. A., M. O. Fernandes, K. K. Iseki, and J. A. Negrão. 2003. Effect of the establishment of dominance relationships on cortisol and other metabolic parameters in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 36: 1725–1731. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2003001200015.
30 Faller, U., and L. (Section d’ Ichtyologie Debacker. 1988. Density-dependent behavioral shift in Oreochromis niloticus. In ICLARM Conference Proceedings (Philippines). ICLARM.
31 Saraiva, João L. 2017. Personal communication.
32 Uddin, M.S., M.E. Azim, M.A. Wahab, and M.C.J. Verdegem. 2009. Effects of substrate addition and supplemental feeding on plankton composition and production in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) polyculture. Aquaculture 297: 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.016.
33 Oso, J. A., I. A. Ayodele, and O. Fagbuaro. 2006. Food and Feeding Habits of Oreochromis niloticus (L.) and Sarotherodon galilaeus (L.) in a Tropical Reservoir. World Journal of Zoology 1: 118–121.
34 Bwanika, G. N., L. J. Chapman, Y. Kizito, and J. Balirwa. 2006. Cascading effects of introduced Nile perch (Lates niloticus) on the foraging ecology of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 15: 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00185.x.
35 Peterson, Mark S., William T. Slack, Gretchen L. Waggy, Jeremy Finley, Christa M. Woodley, and Melissa L. Partyka. 2006. Foraging in Non-Native Environments: Comparison of Nile Tilapia and Three Co-Occurring Native Centrarchids in Invaded Coastal Mississippi Watersheds. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76: 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-006-9033-4.
36 Fessehaye, Yonas, Zizy El-bialy, Mahmoud A. Rezk, Richard Crooijmans, Henk Bovenhuis, and Hans Komen. 2006. Mating systems and male reproductive success in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in breeding hapas: A microsatellite analysis. Aquaculture 256: 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.02.024.
37 Deriggi, Graziele Fernanda, Luis Antonio Kioshi Aoki Inoue, and Moraes Gilberto. 2006. Stress responses to handling in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus): assessment of eugenol as an alternative anesthetic = Respostas metabólicas da tilápia do Nilo (Oreochromis niloticus) submetida ao manuseio e ao anestésico eugenol. ResearchGate 28.
38 Barcellos, Leonardo José Gil, Gilson Luiz Volpato, Rodrigo Egydio Barreto, Ivanir Coldebella, and Daiane Ferreira. 2011. Chemical communication of handling stress in fish. Physiology & Behavior 103: 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.03.009.
39 Barreto, Rodrigo Egydio, and Gilson Luiz Volpato. 2006. Stress responses of the fish Nile tilapia subjected to electroshock and social stressors. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 39: 1605–1612. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2006001200012.
40 Fessehaye, Yonas, Hans Komen, Mahmoud A. Rezk, Johan A.M. van Arendonk, and Henk Bovenhuis. 2007. Effects of inbreeding on survival, body weight and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Aquaculture 264: 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.038.
41 Eissa, A.E., M. Moustafa, I.N. El-Husseiny, S. Saeid, O. Saleh, and T. Borhan. 2009. Identification of some skeletal deformities in freshwater teleosts raised in Egyptian aquaculture. Chemosphere 77: 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.06.050.
42 Abdel, I., E. Abellán, O. López-Albors, P. Valdés, M.J. Nortes, and A. García-Alcázar. 2004. Abnormalities in the juvenile stage of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) reared at different temperatures: types, prevalence and effect on growth. Aquaculture International 12: 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-004-0349-9.
43 Can, Erkan. 2013. Effects of Intensive and Semi-Intensive Rearing on Growth, Survival, and V-Shaped (Lordotic) Skeletal Deformities in Juvenile Gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata).
44 Lambooij, E., M. A. Gerritzen, H. Reimert, D. Burggraaf, and J. W. van de Vis. 2008. A humane protocol for electro-stunning and killing of Nile tilapia in fresh water. Aquaculture 275: 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.026.
45 Robb, D H F, and S C Kestin. 2002. Methods Used to Kill Fish: Field Observations and Literature Reviewed. Animal Welfare 11: 269–282.
46 Farm Animal Welfare Committee. 2014. Opinion on the Welfare of Farmed Fish at the Time of Killing.
47 Eurofish Magazine. 2018. Fish slaughter should be more humane - Eurofish Magazine. http://www.eurofishmagazine.com/sections/equipment/item/268-fish-slaughter-should-be-more-humane. Accessed May 25.
48 Ace-Aquatec. 2018. Stun and maintenance tubes. https://www.aceaquatec.com/hsu-stun. Accessed May 25.
49 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.
50 Njiru, M., J. B. Okeyo-Owuor, M. Muchiri, and I. G. Cowx. 2004. Shifts in the food of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.) in Lake Victoria, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 42: 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00503.x.
51 Al-Feky, S.S.A., A.-F.M. El-Sayed, and A.A. Ezzat. 2016. Dietary taurine enhances growth and feed utilization in larval Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed soybean meal-based diets. Aquaculture Nutrition 22: 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12266.
52 El-Sayed, A-F M. 1998. Total replacement of fish meal with animal protein sources in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), feeds. Aquaculture Research 29: 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00199.x.
53 El-Saidy, Deyab M. S. D., and Magdy M. A. Gaber. 2002. Complete Replacement of Fish Meal by Soybean Meal with Dietary L-Lysine Supplementation for Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.) Fingerlings. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 33: 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2002.tb00506.x.
54 Sarker, Pallab K., Anne R. Kapuscinski, Alison J. Lanois, Erin D. Livesey, Katie P. Bernhard, and Mariah L. Coley. 2016. Towards Sustainable Aquafeeds: Complete Substitution of Fish Oil with Marine Microalga Schizochytrium sp. Improves Growth and Fatty Acid Deposition in Juvenile Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Edited by José L Soengas. PLOS ONE 11: e0156684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156684.
55 Urban Farmers. https://urbanfarmers.com. Urban Farmers.