Information
Authors: Paolo Panizzon, João L. Saraiva
Version: C | 1.0Published: 2026-09-28
- profile update resulting in major editorial and content changes (changing the scoring in criteria 2-4, 6-8, 10)
- 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"
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
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 naccarii (Adriatic sturgeon) is a member of the family Acipenseridae. It is a large, long-lived species. Historically, its range included all the rivers of the Adriatic Sea basin, with some possible but unconfirmed populations in some Spanish rivers. Wild populations have declined strongly, mainly due to overfishing and the disturbance of its natural environment. There is uncertainty related to wild ecology, as its presence is nowadays confirmed only in a few, small populations in the Po river basin.
Adriatic sturgeon is currently farmed in Spain and possibly Italy, mainly for the eggs (caviar), secondarily for the meat, depending on each country’s internal market. For this reason, its aquaculture focuses on rearing individuals for a long period of time (6-7 years) in big tanks or earthen ponds until sexual maturity is reached and it is possible to collect the eggs. To this end, hormonal manipulation is used to maximise egg production; individuals destined for meat production are slaughtered before sexual maturation begins.
The WelfareScore is generally low to unclear, reflecting both welfare challenges and substantial gaps in the available evidence. The species’ space needs cannot be fully assessed, as information is mainly available from farms, and further research on home range and depth use in the wild is needed. The presence of a reported resident population in the Ticino river is promising for the Potential of migratory needs, but more research is needed. Reproduction in captivity depends on hormonal manipulation and stripping, while information on breeding behaviour in the wild is lacking. Information on natural density and species-specific aggression is also scarce, although aggression might be limited to the fry stage, as reported in related species. Earthen ponds can provide more natural bottom conditions for juveniles and adults, although natural reproduction and spawning substrate are not currently achievable for spawners. Stress associated with water quality, handling, and density is likely to occur under minimal farming conditions, while mitigation approaches for high-standard farming conditions still require verification in the farming context. Malformations may occur, but evidence on their frequency across life stages in farms is insufficient. Slaughter practices range from spiking without prior stunning to percussive stunning followed by bleeding while the fish remains unconscious, with the latter providing a substantially better welfare outcome when correctly applied. Overall, the limited amount of evidence, particularly on the species’ natural ecology and behaviour, creates considerable uncertainty in several criteria. Further research could substantially improve the assessment and identify more opportunities for welfare improvement.
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 exclusively found data from farms. Our conclusion is based on a low 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 tanks, ponds, and raceways do not cover the higher end of the depth range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in some age classes. It is unclear for high-standard farming conditions, as these systems do not overlap with the depth range in the wild for JUVENILES and ADULTS but are conceivable to overlap with the depth range in the wild for SPAWNERS. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on specific depth information in the wild.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 – probably especially the ANADROMOUS, SEMI-ANADROMOUS, and POTAMODROMOUS strains - 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 medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the space range of the resident strain in captivity potentially covers the migration distance (although hard to compare given different units in WILD and FARM) and as being resident indicates a general adaptability to limited space in tanks, ponds, and raceways. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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 (hormonal manipulation, stripping), and even if stripping is done under anaesthesia, it remains far from natural spawning. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on mating type, sex ratio, and courtship rituals in the wild as well as number of spawning events and types of manipulation in captivity.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species - from being solitary to aggregating in unstructured groups, 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, given we mainly found data from farms. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on specific density information in the wild and for SPAWNERS in farms.6 Aggression
There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.
What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?
It is unclear for minimal farming conditions, given we just found hints on aggression – even cannibalism – in FRY of related species. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as there is no aggression reported from JUVENILES on (whose welfare we prioritise for scoring over FRY, as JUVENILES-SPAWNERS spend longer time in captivity than FRY). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed specifically addressing aggression (or lack thereof) as well as species-specific mitigators, should FRY be found to be aggressive.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) probably all age classes of the species use substrate, but tanks and raceways are devoid of it and b) given stripping in SPAWNERS. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions given a) earthen ponds (which are not replaced by concrete bottom) for JUVENILES to ADULTS, but b) no natural reproduction imaginable for SPAWNERS (which would require spawning substrate in earthen ponds). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.8 Stress
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size grading).
What is the probability of the species not being stressed?
It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species is likely stressed (water quality, handling, density). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as ways to reduce (and avoid?) stress need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, given we mainly found unspecific data for one age class. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on malformation rates in farms for more age classes.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, given the possibility of asphyxia and/or hypothermia (which needs to be verified for Acipenser naccarii). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, given humane stunning followed by slaughter while still insensible and unconscious through (non-penetrating) percussive stunning followed by bleeding, which 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 30, level 5 being fully domesticated.
While we do not know for sure that Acipenser naccarii reproduction does not entail wild inputs, we know that it is farmed and that hybrids with the related species Acipenser baerii are commonly used in aquaculture. We then consider that Acipenser naccarii should have the same level of domestication as Acipenser baerii 0.
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, almost exclusively invertebrates 31.
- FARM: no replacement of fish meal reported in literature 0. Supplemented linseed oil in diet reduced growth and is not a suitable substitute for fish oil over 1 year of treatment 32.
- LAB: no data found yet.
*partly = <51%, mostly = 51-99%, completely = 100%
Side note: Commercial relevance
How much is this species farmed annually?
23 t in 2024 33.
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 30
DPH = days post hatching
EGGS = reproductive product containing - if fertilised - a ripening embryo until 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
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SEMI-ANADROMOUS = migrating from downstream or the estuary into fresh water upstream to spawn
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
1 Conservation and Breeding of Italian Cobice Endemic Sturgeon (COBICE). 2007. Report 04NAT/IT/000126. Italy: Ente Parco Regionale Veneto del Delta del Po.
2 McKenzie, D J, E Cataldi, P Romano, S F Owen, E W Taylor, and P Bronzi. 2001. Effects of acclimation to brackish water on the growth, respiratory metabolism, and swimming performance of young-of-the-year Adriatic sturgeon ( Acipenser naccarii ). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-059.
3 Cabrera-Castro, R., C. Zabala, M.C. Soriguer, A. Domezain, and J.A. Hernando. 2018. Morphological development in the first life phase of Adriatic sturgeon Acipenser naccarii under controlled conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 92: 1956–1974.
4 Saraiva, João L. 2018. Personal communication.
5 Furné, M., M. García-Gallego, M.C. Hidalgo, A.E. Morales, A. Domezain, J. Domezain, and A. Sanz. 2009. Oxidative stress parameters during starvation and refeeding periods in Adriatic sturgeon ( Acipenser naccarii ) and rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Aquaculture Nutrition 15: 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2008.00626.x.
6 Di Marco, P., D.J. McKenzie, A. Mandich, P. Bronzi, E. Cataldi, and S. Cataudella. 1999. Influence of sampling conditions on blood chemistry values of Adriatic sturgeon Acipenser naccarii (Bonaparte, 1836). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00210.x.
7 Holčík, Juraj. 1989. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe: General introduction to fishes ; Acipenseriformes. AULA - Verlag.
8 Rossi, R, G Grandi, R Trisolini, P Franzoi, A Carrieri, BS Dezfuli, and E Vecchietti. 1991. Osservazioni sulla biologia e la pesca dello storione cobice Acipenser naccarii Bonaparte nella parte terminale del fiume Po. Atti della Società italiana di scienze naturali e del museo civico di storia naturale di Milano 132: 121–142.
9 Bronzi, Paolo, Paul Vecsei, and Giovanni Arlati. 2005. Threatened fishes of the world: Acipenser naccarii Bonaparte, 1836 (Acipenseridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 66–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-004-1036-4.
10 Labria, F., V. Orioli, S. Trasforini, C. Puzzi, P. Tirozzi, L. Bani, and O. Dondina. 2025. Unlocking the Secrets of Sturgeon Ecology: Lessons From Conservation Efforts in Northern Italy. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 35.
11 Pagani, S., G. Castaldelli, L. Congiu, P. Bronzi, R. Rossi, and M. Lanzoni. 2026. The Record of the Last Sturgeons Caught in the Po River (North Italy) Tells a Cautionary Tale of Reasons of Their Silent Disappearance. River Research and Applications 42: 277–283.
12 Arlati, G. 1996. Ripopolamento con lo storione nelle acque pubbliche. In , 11.
13 Arlati, G., P. Bronzi, L. Colombo, and G. Giovannini. 1988. Induced breeding of the Italian Sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii) reared in captivity. Rivista Italiana di Acquacultura 23: 94–96.
14 Arlati, G., A. Grassi, and A. Granata. 1999. Restocking Acipenser Naccarii in the Lombardy Region. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 298–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00288.x.
15 Boglione, C., P. Bronzi, E. Cataldi, S. Serra, F. Gagliardi, and S. Cataudella. 1999. Aspects of early development in the Adriatic sturgeon Acipenser naccarii. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00236.x.
16 Anonymous farmer. 2026. Personal communication.
17 Anonymous farmers. 2018. Personal communication.
18 Kirichenko, Olga, Kuanysh Isbekov, Saule Assylbekova, and Alyona Mukhramova. 2023. State overview of the Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) population in the Irtysh basin 16.
19 Williot, Patrick, Laurent Sabeau, Joern Gessner, Giovanni Arlati, Paolo Bronzi, Tamas Gulyas, and Paolo Berni. 2001. Sturgeon farming in Western Europe: recent developments and perspectives. Aquat. Living Resour.: 9.
20 Cataldi, E, P Di Marco, A Mandich, and S Cataudella. 1998. Serum parameters of Adriatic sturgeon Acipenser naccarii (Pisces: Acipenseriformes): effects of temperature and stress. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 121: 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(98)10134-4.
21 Gisbert, Enric, and Patrick Williot. 1997. Larval behaviour and effect of the timing of initial feeding on growth and survival of Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baeri) larvae under small scale hatchery production. Aquaculture 156: 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(97)00086-0.
22 Gisbert, E, P Williot, and F Castelló-Orvay. 2000. Influence of egg size on growth and survival of early stages of Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baeri) under small scale hatchery conditions. Aquaculture 183: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00287-2.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 Bronzi, P., H. Rosenthal, G Arlati, and P. Williot. 1999. A brief overview on the status and prospects of sturgeon farming in Western and Central Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00239.x.
27 Guerrero, A, Ac Durán, Jm Icardo, B Fernández, A Domezain, and V Sans-Coma. 2007. Dorsoventral transposition of the heart chambers in sturgeon Acipenser naccarii alevins. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 78: 173–177. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao01856.
28 Williot, Patrick, Guy Nonnotte, and Mikhail Chebanov, ed. 2018. The Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser baerii, Brandt, 1869) Volume 2 - Farming. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61676-6.
29 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.
30 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.
31 Bernini, F., and P.A. Nardi. 1992. Gli storioni: riflessioni e proposte di tutela. In Pianura - supplemento a Provincia Nuova. Vol. 4. Cremona, Italy.
32 Agradi, E, G Abrami, G Serrini, D McKenzie, C Bolis, and P Bronzi. 1993. The role of dietary n-3 fatty acid and vitamin e supplements in growth of sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 105: 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(93)90194-9.
33 FAO. 2026. FishStat: Global aquaculture production 1950-2024. www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj: FishStatJ.
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.