Information
Version: C | 2.1 (2024-01-09)
erroneous score changed in crit. 5
no information available
- internal review resulting in minor editorial and major content changes (changing the scoring in criteria 3, 5, and 7)
- transfer to consistent age class and label structure resulting in changed appearance
WelfareScore | farm
Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.
- Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
- Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
- Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)
General remarks
Barbonymus schwanenfeldii is a freshwater fish naturally inhabiting Mekong and Chao Phraya basins besides Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and Borneo in Asia, but it was already introduced in the south-east of the USA, Philippines, Indonesia, and Ivory Coast. It is a tropical BENTHOPELAGIC barb that can be found in streams, canals, ditches, flooded fields, lakes, and especially in medium- to large-sized rivers. B. schwanenfeldii is considered omnivorous, but mainly herbivorous. It is commercially important for the ornamental fish trade and occasionally used as bait. Although it has been cultured for its taste and low trophic level, this barb apparently is not much domesticated yet: ADULTS are taken from the wild to become SPAWNERS, for example. Besides that, further research about important wild information of this fish is still missing, especially about home range, aggregation densities, reproduction, and substrate use. Relevant information to better assess farming conditions of this barb is also missing, especially about its stress response and malformation rates in captivity. A humane slaughter protocol still remains to be established. Together, this missing data makes it difficult to assess and improve the welfare conditions of B. schwanenfeldii.
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, as the missing wild information in all age classes does not allow a comparison with farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions, as some ponds and cages do not cover the whole range in the wild. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other ponds overlap with the range in the wild, although we cannot be sure about the actual wild range. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as specific wild and farm information is missing.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 at least SPAWNERS undertake 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 range in captivity potentially overlaps with the migration distance (although unknown). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as there is wild migration distance information missing in all age classes.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 (separation by sex, hormonal manipulation, stripping) and may be taken from the wild. Omitting separation by sex might be verified for the farming context, but is not enough of an improvement to justify Po=M. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the missing wild information on specific densities in schools 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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as there is no aggression and no competition reported. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as we are lacking studies 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 the species uses substrate, but aquaria and plastic bowls/boxes are devoid of it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as a) earthen ponds for JUVENILES, ADULTS, and SPAWNERS (which are not replaced by concrete or stone bottom) need to be verified for the farming context and b) whether adding plants to cages will satisfy the needs of this BENTHOPELAGIC species needs to be verified, too. 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?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.9 Malformations
Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.
What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.10 Slaughter
The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.
What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?
It is low for minimal farming conditions, as asphyxia does not induce unconsciousness fast and as there is no killing while still unconscious. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as there are promising stunning and slaughter methods, but they need to be verified for B. schwanenfeldii. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as research specifically on the focus species is missing.Side note: Domestication
Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.
What is the species’ domestication level?
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 38, level 5 being fully domesticated.
Side note: Forage fish in the feed
450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.
To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?
All age classes:
- WILD: omnivorous 39 40 41-32 35-21 21 – mainly herbivorous 35-21, being considered detritivorous 39 41-32.
- FARM: feed on cassava and Passiflora leaves efficiently, but better growth with commercial feed 7 of high protein level (32%) 8.
- LAB: better growth with commercial feed of high protein level (32%) 29.
Glossary
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 38
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FINGERLINGS = early juveniles with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a human finger
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Kusmini, I. I., R. Gustiano, D. Radona, and K. Kurniawan. 2021. Domestication Strategies of Tinfoil Barb Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker, 1854): Potential Candidate for Freshwater Aquaculture Development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 934: 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/934/1/012003.
3 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, R. Fahmi, and Misran. 2021. The competition index and growth performance between tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and native fish spesies Laut Tawar Lake in polyculture system. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 674: 012080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/674/1/012080.
4 Christensen, Mike. 1993. Economic analysis of floating cage culture of Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, using chicken manure and other fresh feeds. Asian Fisheries Science 6: 271–281. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.1993.6.3.003.
5 Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
6 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, and F. Fahma. 2022. Polyculture of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and lemeduk (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) in floating net cages as a strategy for utilizing natural food. E3S Web of Conferences 339: 01008. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202233901008.
7 Christensen, M. S. 1994. Growth of Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, Fed Various Feeds, Including Fresh Chicken Manure, in Floating Cages. Asian Fisheries Science 7: 29–34.
8 Mansour, O., M. Idris, and S. K. Das. 2020. Effect of different tpyes of commercial feed meal on the growth of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Lampan) fry. International Journal of Technology Management and Information System 2: 62–71.
9 Jena, J., P. Chandra Das, S. Mondal, and R. Das. 2007. Compatibility of silver barb Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) with Indian major carps in a grow-out polyculture. Aquaculture Research 38: 1061–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01768.x.
10 Sahu, P. K., J. Jena, and P. C. Das. 2021. Periphyton based grow-out farming of Indian major carps with Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) and Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) for better water quality and enhanced fish production. Aquaculture 533: 736118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736118.
11 Mahean Haque, S., M. A. Wahab, M. I. Wahid, and M. S. Haq. 1998. Impacts of Thai silver barb (Puntius gonionotus Bleeker) inclusion in the polyculture of carps. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research 2: 15–22.
12 Azim, M. E., M. A. Wahab, A. H. M. Kamal, and Z. F. Ahmed. 2004. Feeding Relations of Silver Barb Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) with Major Indian and Common Carp and Its Effect on Fish Production in a Polyculture System. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 35: 100–108.
13 Mohanta, K. N., S. N. Mohanty, J. Jena, and N. P. Sahu. 2008. Effect of three different oil cake-based diets on pond production performance of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker). Aquaculture Research 39: 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01974.x.
14 Rothuis, A J, L T Duong, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: feeding ecology and impact on rice and ricefield environment. Aquaculture Research 29: 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00255.x.
15 Vromant, N., C. Q. Nam, and F. Ollevier. 2002. Growth performance of Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) in intensively cultivated rice fields. Aquaculture 212: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00005-4.
16 Haroon, A. K. Y., and K. A. Pittman. 1997. Diel feeding pattern and ration of two sizes of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus Bleeker, in a nursery pond and ricefield. Aquaculture Research 28: 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1997.00890.x.
17 Chaudhary, S. N., M. K. Shrestha, D. K. Jha, and N. P. Pandit. 2008. Growth Performance of Silver Barb (Puntius gonionotus) in Mono and Polyculture Systems. Our Nature 6: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v6i1.1653.
18 Bhuiyan, A. S., M. K. Islam, and T. Zaman. 2006. Induced spawning of Puntius Gonionotus (Bleeker). Journal of Bio-Science 14: 121–125. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v14i0.455.
19 Epasinghege Don, E. D. M., A. M. A. N. Adikari, H. M. P. Kithsiri, V. Pahalawattarachchi, and T. A. D. W. Karunaratne. 2016. Induced breeding of Golden Tinfoil Barb (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) using ovaprim. Conference: NARA scientific sessions, proceedings, Healthies Aquatic Environment for the Economic Growth NSS2016.
20 Isa, M. M., A-S. Md-Shah, S.-A. Mohd-Sah, N. Baharudin, and M.-A. Abdul-Halim. 2012. Population Dynamics of Tinfoil Barb, Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker, 1853) in Pedu Reservoir, Kedah. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 2: 55–70.
21 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Tinfoil barb (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
22 Abdullah, A., R. Ramly, M. S. Mohammad Ridzwan, F. Sudirwan, A. Abas, K. Ahmad, M. Murni, and B. C. Kua. 2018. First detection of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) in wild river carp (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) at Timah Tasoh Lake, Malaysia. Journal of Fish Diseases 41: 1459–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12843.
23 Rothuis, A J, C Q Nam, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: fish production parameters. Aquaculture Research 29: 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00256.x.
24 Rahman, M. M., and A. Fathi. 2022. Influence of environmental factors on biology and catch composition of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii in a tropical lake, northern Malaysia: implications for conservation planning. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 13661–13674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16502-w.
25 Christensen, Mikkel S. 1992. Investigations on the Ecology and Fish Fauna of the Mahakam River in East Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 77: 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19920770405.
26 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
27 McAdam, D. S. O., N. R. Liley, and E. S. P. Tan. 1999. Comparison of Reproductive Indicators and Analysis of the Reproductive Seasonality of the Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, in the Perak River, Malaysia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007563914300.
28 Riehl, R., and H. A. Baensch. Aquarien Atlas, Band 1. 10th edition. Melle, Germany: Mergus Verlag GmBH.
29 Mansour, O., M. Idris, and S. K. Das. 2016. Effect of different types of commercial feed meal on the growth forms of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Lampam) in Chini Lake, Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceedings 1784: 060044. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4966882.
30 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, M. R. Purnama, A. Damora, and S. Mellisa. 2021. The application of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) using floating net cages on Tilapia fish with native fish (Peres, Lemeduk, and Depik). Depik 10: 219–224. https://doi.org/10.13170/depik.10.3.22465.
31 Isa, M. M., C. S. Rawi, R. Rosla, S. A. M. Shah, and A. S. R. Shah. 2010. Length – weight Relationships of Freshwater Fish Species in Kerian River Basin and Pedu Lake. Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology 5: 1–8.
32 Gante, H. F., L. M. da Costa, J. Micael, and M. J. Alves. 2008. First record of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker) in the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Fish Biology 72: 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01773.x.
33 Kottelat, M. 2001. Fishes of Laos. Colombo: WHT Publications (Pte).
34 Fabian. 2023. Tinfoil Barb Care: Complete Guide for Beginners. AquariumNexus.
35 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
36 Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
37 Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
38 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.
39 Siaw-Yang, Y. 1988. Food resource utilization partitioning of fifteen fish species at Bukit Merah Reservoir, Malaysia. Hydrobiologia 157: 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006967.
40 Mills, D., and G. Vevers. 1989. The Tetra encyclopedia of freshwater tropical aquarium fishes. New Jersey, EUA: Tetra Press.
41 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO species identification field guide for fishery purposes. Rome: FAO.
