Information
Authors: Paolo Panizzon, João L. Saraiva
Version: C | 1.0Published: 2026-07-18
- profile update resulting in major editorial and content changes (changing the scoring in criteria 2, 4-9)
- transfer to consistent age class and label structure resulting in changed appearance
- minor editorial changes (incl. correction of domestication level) plus new side note "Commercial relevance"
WelfareScore | farm
The score card gives our welfare assessments for aquatic species in 10 criteria.
For each criterion, we score the probability to experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions ("Likelihood") and under high-standard farming conditions ("Potential") representing the worst and best case scenario. The third dimension scores how certain we are of our assessments based on the number and quality of sources we found ("Certainty").
The WelfareScore sums just the "High" scores in each dimension. Although good welfare ("High") seems not possible in some criteria, there could be at least a potential improvement from low to medium welfare (indicated by ➚ and the number of 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
➚ = potential improvements not reaching "High" - Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10 per dimension)
General remarks
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii (Russian sturgeon) is a member of the family Acipenseridae. It is a large, long-lived migratory species native to the Caspian Sea, Black Sea, and historically also the Azov Sea basins. Adults inhabit coastal marine and brackish waters and migrate into large rivers to spawn. Wild populations have declined severely due to overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution, and especially the construction of dams that block access to spawning grounds. Although the species is economically important and has been studied for decades, important gaps remain in our understanding of its ecology, particularly regarding home range, social organisation, and density patterns in the wild.
It is farmed throughout its native range and in several other countries, mainly for caviar production and secondarily for meat. Rearing begins in hatcheries, where eggs and larvae are kept in trays and tanks. Juveniles are subsequently grown in tanks, cages, raceways, or earthen ponds. Individuals destined for caviar production are maintained until sexual maturity, which may require several years, whereas individuals intended for meat production are harvested earlier. So, sexually mature Russian sturgeons are generally maintained only as spawners for caviar production and/or breeding rather than meat, given the cost of raising individuals to maturity. Reproduction in captivity relies almost exclusively on artificial procedures, including hormonal induction, gonadal monitoring by biopsy or endoscopy, and egg collection by stripping or slaughter.
The WelfareScore is low due to the species’ migratory behaviour and the widespread use of artificial reproduction procedures. Although farming systems can provide environmental conditions that overlap with part of the depth range used in the wild, they cannot accommodate the extensive spawning migrations performed by the species. Reproduction in captivity depends on invasive procedures such as biopsy, endoscopy, hormonal manipulation, and stripping, all of which differ substantially from natural spawning. Information on natural mating systems, courtship behaviour, sex ratios, and spawning frequencies remains limited, making it difficult to assess how closely captive conditions meet reproductive needs. Aggression appears to be restricted mainly to the fry stage, where cannibalism can occur, while little or no aggression is reported from later life stages. Earthen ponds may provide suitable substrate for juveniles and adults, but many production systems lack natural bottom structures, and current spawning practices do not allow natural reproduction. Stress associated with handling, transport, crowding, and water-quality challenges is common, although several mitigation measures have been developed. Malformations can occur at appreciable rates during early development, and their causes are still insufficiently understood. Humane slaughter methods based on percussive stunning followed by bleeding are available and can provide rapid loss of consciousness when correctly applied. At the same time, the scarcity of modern field studies and telemetry data creates considerable uncertainty regarding the spatial, social, and behavioural requirements of wild Russian sturgeons. Further research on wild ecology and on less invasive reproductive methods could yield substantial welfare improvements.
Note: due to reaching maturity after the typical age and weight at slaughter, there is no farm information for the age class "adults" in the profile. Welfare aspects associated with farm settings after maturation are included under ”spawners”.
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, given we (almost) exclusively found spatial-specific data from farms. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed on home range in the wild.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, as trays, tanks, ponds, and cages do not cover the higher end of the depth range in the wild. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the mentioned systems at least overlap (or are easily imaginable to overlap) with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a high 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 low for minimal farming conditions, as the species undertakes more or less 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. It is low for high-standard farming conditions, as the space range in captivity does not overlap with the migration distance. Our conclusion is based on a high 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 these circumstances?
It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the species is manipulated (biopsy/endoscopy, hormonal manipulation, stripping), and even if done under anaesthesia, it remains far from natural spawning. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed on mating type, sex ratio, and courting rituals in the wild as well as age of spawning, sex ratio, and number of spawning events in captivity.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, as the missing wild information on specific densities does not allow a comparison with farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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?
It is low for minimal farming conditions, as FRY can be aggressive – even cannibalistic. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as a) ways to reduce (but not avoid) aggression in FRY (size grading) are verified for the farming context and b) there is no aggression reported from JUVENILES on. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed specifically addressing aggression (or lack thereof).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, as a) all age classes of the species use substrate, but (some) tanks, raceways, cages, and some ponds are devoid of it and b) given stripping of SPAWNERS. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions given a) pebbles for eggs, LARVAE, and FRY, b) earthen ponds (which are not replaced by concrete bottom) for JUVENILES, but c) no natural reproduction imaginable for SPAWNERS (which would require spawning substrate in earthen ponds). Our conclusion is based on a medium 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?
It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species is stressed (water quality, crowding, handling, transport). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some ways to reduce (but not avoid) stress are verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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 can exceed 10%. It is low for high-standard farming conditions, as malformations in JUVENILES and SPAWNERS do not seem to result from conditions that may be changed. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on the causes for malformations and respective mitigation measures.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, fear, and distress.
What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?
It is low for minimal farming conditions (asphyxia and/or hypothermia). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as percussive stunning, followed by bleeding, induces unconsciousness fast (if done correctly), kills while still insensible and unconscious, and is verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed to confirm the findings.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 40, 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: carnivorous 18.
- FARM: no data found yet.
- LAB: fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 41, but further research is needed to investigate effects on welfare after >2 months. Fish oil may be completely* replaced by sustainable sources 42, but further research is needed to investigate effects on welfare after >2 months.
*partly = <51%, mostly = 51-99%, completely = 100%
Side note: Commercial relevance
How much is this species farmed annually?
213 t/year 1990-2022 amounting to estimated <1,000,000 IND/year 1990-2022 43.
Glossary
ANADROMOUS = migrating from the sea into fresh water to spawn
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 40
DPH = days post hatching
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
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PLANKTONIC = horizontal movement limited to hydrodynamic displacement
RAS = Recirculating Aquaculture System - almost completely closed system using filters to clean and recirculate water with the aim of reducing water input and with the advantage of enabling close control of environmental parameters to maintain high water quality
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
1 Zheltenkova, M. V. 1964. Sturgeon feeding in southern seas. Trudy VNIRO 54: 9–48.
2 Chebanov, Mikhail S., and Elena V. Galich. 2011. Sturgeon hatchery manual. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 558. Ankara: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
3 Kynard, Boyd, Ping Zhuang, Longzhen Zhang, Tao Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. 2002. Ontogenetic Behavior and Migration of Volga River Russian sturgeon, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, with a Note on Adaptive Significance of Body Color. Environmental Biology of Fishes 65: 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021121900207.
4 Rzepkowska, Małgorzata, Dobrochna Adamek-Urbańska, Magdalena Fajkowska, and Marek Łukasz Roszko. 2020. Histological Evaluation of Gonad Impairments in Russian Sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) Reared in Recirculating Aquatic System (RAS). Animals 10: 1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081439.
5 Saraiva, João L. 2018. Personal communication.
6 Kocabaş, Mehmet, Nadir Başçınar, Şebnem Atasaral Şahin, and Ramazan Serezli. 2015. Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Russian Sturgeon Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt&Ratzeburg, 1833 in Grow-out Phase Cultured in the Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 3: 816–818. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v3i10.816-818.442.
7 Elhetawy, Ashraf I G, Lydia M Vasilyeva, Ayman M Lotfy, Nadezhda Emelianova, Mohamed M Abdel-Rahim, Amr M Helal, and Natalia V Sudakova. 2020. Effects of the rearing system of the Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) on growth, maturity, and the quality of produced caviar. AACL Bioflux 13.
8 Hurvitz, Avshalom, Karen Jackson, Gad Degani, and Berta Levavi-Sivan. 2007. Use of endoscopy for gender and ovarian stage determinations in Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) grown in aquaculture. Aquaculture 270: 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.05.020.
9 Khodorevskaya, R. P., G. I. Ruban, and D. S. Pavlov. 2009. Behaviour, migrations, distribution and stocks of sturgeons in the Volga-Caspian basin. World Sturgeon Conservation Society: Special Publication 3. Norder- stedt, Germany: Books on Demand GmbH.
10 Ruban, Georgii, Raisa Khodorevskaya, and Mikhail Shatunovskii. 2019. Factors influencing the natural reproduction decline in the beluga (Huso huso , Linnaeus, 1758), Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, Brandt & Ratzeburg, 1833), and stellate sturgeon (A. stellatus, Pallas, 1771) of the Volga–Caspian basin: A review. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 35: 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13885.
11 Vlasenko, A. D. 1982. Biological basis for sturgeon reproduction after damming of the Volga and Kuban rivers. Extended abstract of Candidate of Science (Biology) dissertation, Moscow, USSR: VNIRO.
12 Semenkova, T. B., L.v. Bayunova, A.a. Boev, and V.p. Dyubin. 1999. Effects of stress on serum Cortisol levels of sturgeon in aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00249.x.
13 Bayunova, L., I. Barannikova, and T. Semenkova. 2002. Sturgeon stress reactions in aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2002.00410.x.
14 Alyavdina, L. A. 1954. Breeding conditions of migratory sturgeon fish below Stalingrad. Tr. Saratovsk. Otd. Kaspiisk. Fil. 3. VNIRO: 273–281.
15 Shalgimbaeva, G. M., N. S. Mugue, K. B. Isbekov, A. A. Volkov, and E. V. Mikodina. 2022. Ural (Zhayik) River Spawning Grounds of the Sturgeon (Acipenseridae) in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Modern Situation. Journal of Ichthyology 62: 1439–1453. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945222060273.
16 Veshchev, P. V., G. I. Guteneva, and R. S. Mukhanova. 2012. Efficiency of natural reproduction of sturgeons in the lower Volga under current conditions. Russian Journal of Ecology 43: 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413612020154.
17 Kübra, Ak. 2023. Effects of Size Grading on Growth Performance, Survival Rate and Cannibalism in Russian Sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) Larvae Under Small-Scale Hatchery Conditions. Aquatic Sciences and Engineering 38: 47–52. https://doi.org/10.26650/ASE20221202625.
18 Margaritova, Borislava, Lyubomir Kenderov, Dimitriy Dashinov, Eliza Uzunova, and Stoyan Mihov. 2021. Dietary composition of young sturgeons (Acipenseridae) from the Bulgarian section of the Danube River. Journal of Natural History 55: 2279–2297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2021.2005838.
19 Mihov, Stoyan Dobrev, Borislava Kostadinova Margaritova, and Veselin Nikolaev Koev. 2022. Downstream migration of young-of-the-year sturgeons (Acipenseridae) in the Lower Danube River, Bulgaria. Biodiversity 23: 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2022.2099462.
20 Khodorevskaya, R. P., and Ye. V. Krasikov. 1999. Sturgeon abundance and distribution in the Caspian Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00218.x.
21 Pavlov, D.S., G.I. Ruban, and L.I. Sokolov. 2001. On types of spawning migration in sturgeon fishes (Acipenseriformes) of the world fauna. Journal of Ichthyology 41: 225–236.
22 Birstein, Vadim J., and Georgii I. Ruban. 2004. A comment on the Siberian, Acipenser baerii, and Russian, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, sturgeons. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 91–92.
23 Khodorevskaya, R.P. 1977. Juvenile sturgeon behaviour pattern depending of their downstream migration. Abstract of dissertation.
24 Deak, G, A M Badilita, T Danalache, and M Tudor. 2014. Use of acoustic telemetry for providing an insight into sturgeon’s behaviour and migration routes on lower Danube. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 15: 954–964.
25 Gerbil’skii, N. L. 1957. Ways of development of intraspecific biological differentiation, types of anadromous migrants and the question of the migratory impulse in sturgeons. Uch. Zap. Leningr. Gros. Univ. 44(1). Biol. Nauk: 11–32.
26 Chebanov, M. S., G. I. Karnaukhov, E. V. Galic, and Yu. N. Chmir. 2002. Hatchery stock enhancement and conservation of sturgeon, with and emphasis on the Azov Sea population. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 463–469.
27 Podushka, S. B. 1999. Obtaining caviar from sturgeon with preservation of life of producers. Scientific and technical Bulletin of INENCO 2: 4–19.
28 Memiş, D, E Ercan, MS Çelikkale, M Timur, and Z Zarkua. 2009. Growth and Survival Rate of Russian Sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) Larvae from Fertilized Eggs to Artificial Feeding. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 9: 47–52.
29 Kim, Eun Jeong, Chulhong Park, and Yoon Kwon Nam. 2019. Ontogenetic behavior of farm-bred Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) prelarvae in a diel photoperiodic cycle: behavioral modifications in response to light intensity. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 22: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41240-019-0118-3.
30 Castellano, Mauricio, Valeria Silva-Álvarez, Elena Fernández-López, Verónica Mauris, Daniel Conijeski, Andrea Villarino, and Ana M. Ferreira. 2017. Russian sturgeon cultured in a subtropical climate shows weaken innate defences and a chronic stress response. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 68: 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2017.07.048.
31 Çelikkale, M. S., D. Memiş, E. Ercan, and F. Çağıltay. 2005. Growth performance of juvenile Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt & Ratzenburg, 1833) at two stocking densities in net cages. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21: 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2004.00567.x.
32 Allen, P. J., C. C. Barth, S. J. Peake, M. V. Abrahams, and W. G. Anderson. 2009. Cohesive social behaviour shortens the stress response: the effects of conspecifics on the stress response in lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02112.x.
33 Bekeshev, A. B., and N. E. Peseridi. 1966. Downstream Migration of Young Sturgeons of the Ural River. Biol. osnovy rybn. khoz-va na vodoemakh Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana 1. Alma-ata: 116–121.
34 Memiş, D., E. Ercan, and G. Yamaner. 2011. The effects of shaded pond on growth performance of Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27: 571–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01732.x.
35 Duman, Selçuk. 2019. The effect of anesthetic (2-phenoxyethanol) application on some biochemical and hematological parameters in Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) and Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) during transport. TURKISH JOURNAL OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES 43: 825–833. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1812-96.
36 Williot, Patrick, Guy Nonnotte, and Mikhail Chebanov. 2018. The Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser baerii, Brandt, 1869) Volume 2 - Farming. Springer.
37 Emam, Wasseem, and Matthew Unerman. 2026. Animal welfare in European caviar production: insights from sturgeon producers. Frontiers in Fish Science 4. Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/frish.2026.1828234.
38 Jung-Schroers, Verena, Matthias Lüpke, Inga Wilk, and Mesfin Belay. 2025. Betäubung von Stören durch Perkussion oder Bolzenschuss - Verbesserung des Tierschutzes bei der Betäubung und Schlachtung von Stören.
39 Zapryanova, Dimitrinka, Alexander Atanasoff, Galin Nikolov, Anton Russenov, and Teodora Mircheva. 2018. Evaluation of reference values for corticosteroid stress hormone and certain acute phase proteins in 8 fish species from Cyprinidae, Salmonidae, Acipenseridae, Esocidae and Clariidae family.
40 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.
41 Emre, Nesrin, Derya Güroy, Fatma Banu Yalim, Yılmaz Emre, Betül Güroy, Serhan Mantoğlu, and Onur Karadal. 2018. Growth Performance, Body Composition, Haematological and Serum Parameters to Fish Meal Replacement by Soybean Meal and Cottonseed Meal in Russian Sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii). Journal of Limnology and Freshwater Fisheries Research 4: 169–176. https://doi.org/10.17216/limnofish.460773.
42 Şener, E., M. Yıldız, and E. Savaş. 2006. Effect of Vegetable Protein and Oil Supplementation on Growth Performance and Body Composition of Russian Sturgeon Juveniles (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt, 1833) at Low Temperatures. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 6: 23–27.
43 Mood, A., and P. Brooke. 2025. Fishcount.org.uk.
The legend next to the WelfareScore card gives the definitions of the three dimensions we score the welfare of aquatic species on. You will also find the score options and how we arrive at the overall WelfareScore. If you scroll down to the criteria, you will find the explanations for the scores for each criterion for many species already. We are in the process of inserting these for all WelfareChecks we update. If your species of interest is missing these score justifications or if you are interested to know more details about the scoring procedure, please consult our scoring rationale.
For WelfareChecks we have not managed to update yet, previous scoring rationales may apply:
- before 2022: scoring rationale
- before 2018: scoring rationale
In general, this depends on the available literature on the species – for example, electrical stunning can work for one species but not for another. The prerequisites are that stunning a) induction happens without inducing pain, fear, or distress, b) is verified for the farming context (otherwise, we report under the "LAB" label for laboratory studies), and c) continues until slaughter, so without the individuals regaining consciousness and sensibility. Asphyxiation in air or water as well as hypothermia usually do not cover this. For fair-fish's position on the debate about electrical stunning, including how its effectiveness can be assessed from a welfare perspective, please see our position paper (07/2026).
The criteria cover the main focus of the WelfareChecks – an assessment of the welfare of aquatic species. When selecting the criteria, though, we were aware of the importance of some topics so that we wanted to include them and collect data but not score them. For WelfareChecks | farm, these topics are "domestication level", "feed replacement", and "commercial relevance". The domestication and commercial relevance aspects allow us to analyse the questions whether increasing rate of domestication or relevance in farming worldwide goes hand in hand with better welfare; the feed replacement rather goes in the direction of added suffering for all those species which end up as feed. For a carnivorous species, to gain 1 kg of meat, you do not just kill this one individual but you have to take into account the meat that it was fed during its life in the form of fish meal and fish oil. In other words, carnivorous species (and to a degree also omnivorous ones) have a larger "fish in:fish out" ratio.
Probably, we updated the profile. Check the version number in the head of the page. For more information on the version, see the FAQ about this. Why do we update profiles? Not just do we want to include new research that has come out, but we are continuously developing the database itself. For example, we changed the structure of entries in criteria or we added explanations for scores in the WelfareCheck | farm. And we are always refining our scoring rules.
The centre of the Overview is an array of criteria covering basic features and behaviours of the species. Each of this information comes from our literature search on the species. If we researched a full Dossier on the species, probably all criteria in the Overview will be covered and thus filled. This was our way to go when we first set up the database.
Because Dossiers are time consuming to research, we switched to focusing on WelfareChecks. These are much shorter profiles covering just 10 criteria we deemed important when it comes to behaviour and welfare in aquaculture (and lately fisheries, too). Also, WelfareChecks contain the assessment of the welfare potential of a species which has become the main feature of the fair-fish database over time. Because WelfareChecks do not cover as many criteria as a Dossier, we don't have the information to fill all blanks in the Overview, as this information is "not investigated by us yet".
Our long-term goal is to go back to researching Dossiers for all species covered in the fair-fish database once we set up WelfareChecks for each of them. If you would like to support us financially with this, please get in touch at ffdb@fair-fish.net
See the question "What does "not investigated by us yet" mean?". In short, if we have not had a look in the literature - or in other words, if we have not investigated a criterion - we cannot know the data. If we have already checked the literature on a criterion and could not find anything, it is "no data found yet". You spotted a "no data found yet" where you know data exists? Get in touch with us at ffdb@fair-fish.net!
Once you have clicked on "show details", the entry for a criterion will unfold and display the summarised information we collected from the scientific literature – complete with the reference(s).
As reference style we chose "Springer Humanities (numeric, brackets)" which presents itself in the database as a number in a grey box. Mouse over the box to see the reference; click on it to jump to the bibliography at the bottom of the page. But what does "[x]↶[y]" refer to?
This is the way we mark secondary citations. In this case, we read reference "y", but not reference "x", and cite "x" as mentioned in "y". We try to avoid citing secondary references as best as possible and instead read the original source ourselves. Sometimes we have to resort to citing secondarily, though, when the original source is: a) very old or not (digitally) available for other reasons, b) in a language no one in the team understands. Seldomly, it also happens that we are running out of time on a profile and cannot afford to read the original. As mentioned, though, we try to avoid it, as citing mistakes may always happen (and we don't want to copy the mistake) and as misunderstandings may occur by interpreting the secondarily cited information incorrectly.
If you spot a secondary reference and would like to send us the original work, please contact us at ffdb@fair-fish.net
In general, we aim at giving a good representation of the literature published on the respective species and read as much as we can. We do have a time budget on each profile, though. This is around 80-100 hours for a WelfareCheck and around 300 hours for a Dossier. It might thus be that we simply did not come around to reading the paper.
It is also possible, though, that we did have to make a decision between several papers on the same topic. If there are too many papers on one issue than we manage to read in time, we have to select a sample. On certain topics that currently attract a lot of attention, it might be beneficial to opt for the more recent papers; on other topics, especially in basic research on behaviour in the wild, the older papers might be the go-to source.
And speaking of time: the paper you are missing from the profile might have come out after the profile was published. For the publication date, please check the head of the profile at "cite this profile". We currently update profiles every 6-7 years.
If your paper slipped through the cracks and you would like us to consider it, please get in touch at ffdb@fair-fish.net
This number, for example "C | 2.1 (2022-11-02)", contains 4 parts:
- "C" marks the appearance – the design level – of the profile part. In WelfareChecks | farm, appearance "C" is our most recent one with consistent age class and label (WILD, FARM, LAB) structure across all criteria.
- "2." marks the number of major releases within this appearance. Here, it is major release 2. Major releases include e.g. changes of the WelfareScore. Even if we just add one paper – if it changes the score for one or several criteria, we will mark this as a major update for the profile. With a change to a new appearance, the major release will be re-set to 1.
- ".1" marks the number of minor updates within this appearance. Here, it is minor update 1. With minor updates, we mean changes in formatting, grammar, orthography. It can also mean adding new papers, but if these papers only confirm the score and don't change it, it will be "minor" in our book. With a change to a new appearance, the minor update will be re-set to 0.
- "(2022-11-02)" is the date of the last change – be it the initial release of the part, a minor, or a major update. The nature of the changes you may find out in the changelog next to the version number.
If an Advice, for example, has an initial release date and then just a minor update date due to link corrections, it means that – apart from correcting links – the Advice has not been updated in a major way since its initial release. Please take this into account when consulting any part of the database.
First up, you will find answers to questions for the specific page you are on. Scrolling down in the FAQ window, there are also answers to more general questions. Explore our website and the other sub pages and find there the answers to questions relevant for those pages.
In the fair-fish database, when you have chosen a species (either by searching in the search bar or in the species tree), the landing page is an Overview, introducing the most important information to know about the species that we have come across during our literatures search, including common names, images, distribution, habitat and growth characteristics, swimming aspects, reproduction, social behaviour but also handling details. To dive deeper, visit the Dossier where we collect all available ethological findings (and more) on the most important aspects during the life course, both biologically and concerning the habitat. In contrast to the Overview, we present the findings in more detail citing the scientific references.
Depending on whether the species is farmed or wild caught, you will be interested in different branches of the database.
Farm branch
Founded in 2013, the farm branch of the fair-fish database focuses on farmed aquatic species.
Catch branch
Founded in 2022, the catch branch of the fair-fish database focuses on wild-caught aquatic species.
The heart of the farm branch of the fair-fish database is the welfare assessment – or WelfareCheck | farm – resulting in the WelfareScore | farm for each species. The WelfareCheck | farm is a condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good welfare in aquaculture, based on welfare-related findings for 10 crucial criteria (home range, depth range, migration, reproduction, aggregation, aggression, substrate, stress, malformations, slaughter).
For those species with a Dossier, we conclude to-be-preferred farming conditions in the Advice | farm. They are not meant to be as detailed as a rearing manual but instead, challenge current farming standards and often take the form of what not to do.
In parallel to farm, the main element of the catch branch of the fair-fish database is the welfare assessment – or WelfareCheck | catch – with the WelfareScore | catch for each species caught with a specific catching method. The WelfareCheck | catch, too, is a condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good welfare – or better yet avoidance of decrease of good welfare – this time in fisheries. We base this on findings on welfare hazards in 10 steps along the catching process (prospection, setting, catching, emersion, release from gear, bycatch avoidance, sorting, discarding, storing, slaughter).
In contrast to the farm profiles, in the catch branch we assess the welfare separately for each method that the focus species is caught with. In the case of a species exclusively caught with one method, there will be one WelfareCheck, whereas in other species, there will be as many WelfareChecks as there are methods to catch the species with.
Summarising our findings of all WelfareChecks | catch for one species in Advice | catch, we conclude which catching method is the least welfare threatening for this species and which changes to the gear or the catching process will potentially result in improvements of welfare.
Welfare of aquatic species is at the heart of the fair-fish database. In our definition of welfare, we follow Broom (1986): “The welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment.” Thus, welfare may be perceived as a continuum on which an individual rates “good” or “poor” or everything in between.
We pursue what could be called a combination of not only a) valuing the freedom from injuries and stress (function-based approach) but b) supporting attempts to provide rewarding experiences and cognitive challenges (feelings-based approach) as well as c) arguing for enclosures that mimic the wild habitat as best as possible and allow for natural behaviour (nature-based approach).
Try mousing over the element you are interested in - oftentimes you will find explanations this way. If not, there will be FAQ on many of the sub-pages with answers to questions that apply to the respective sub-page. If your question is not among those, contact us at ffdb@fair-fish.net.
It's right here! We decided to re-name it to fair-fish database for several reasons. The database has grown beyond dealing purely with ethology, more towards welfare in general – and so much more. Also, the partners fair-fish and FishEthoGroup decided to re-organise their partnership. While maintaining our friendship, we also desire for greater independence. So, the name "fair-fish database" establishes it as a fair-fish endeavour.