Information
Version: C | 1.0 (2024-03-12)
no information available
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
Channa argus is a freshwater fish that is native to eastern Russia and China as well as parts of North Korea. It naturally lives in lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams in waters ranging 0-41 °C. C. argus is a typical ambush predator that lies on the bottom waiting for its prey, being one of the most common BENTHIC piscivores in warm shallow lakes in China. It is mostly active at dusk/early night and before dawn, typically in vegetation close to shore. Curiously, it is an obligate air-breathing fish able to survive under ice that anecdotally is known for terrestrial behaviours, as it can stay out of the water for days. For spawning, this fish nests in highly vegetated shallow waters with low to no flow. In aquaculture, it is commonly grown in ponds and reservoirs, being the most important snakehead fish cultured in China. This fish is also considered for its pharmacological properties and is used for recreational fishing. It was already introduced throughout central Asia and Japan, besides other countries like Canada and the USA, which have reported adverse ecological impact after introduction. C. argus is becoming one of the most popular cultured species in southern and south‐eastern Asian countries, having some characteristics that are advantageous for farming, such as high tolerance to a wide variety of environmental conditions – including hypoxic conditions – strong resistance to diseases, high nutrition, and a good taste. However, it is probably harvested before reaching maturity, and almost no information about its farming conditions is available, which makes it very difficult to assess and improve its welfare in aquaculture conditions. Furthermore, as most available wild information comes from JUVENILES, ADULTS, and SPAWNERS in non-native waters, more research is needed in native waters and for other age classes. Because it is commonly sold in live-fish markets – including ethnic markets and restaurants – in Canada and the USA, thus probably dying during processing, a humane slaughter protocol is urgently needed.
1 Home range
Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?
It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as cages and ponds do not cover – in fact not even overlap with – the whole range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in most age classes. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as wild information is missing in LARVAE, FRY, and JUVENILES.2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?
It is high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as ponds (and potentially cages) cover the whole range in the wild, easily imaginable also for SPAWNERS. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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 and high-standard 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. Our conclusion is based on a low 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 farming conditions, as the species is manipulated (hormonal manipulation). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as natural breeding is possible and verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on reproduction behaviour in the wild and in farms.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?
It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as densities in ponds go beyond the smallest density in the wild and as we may conclude from the fact that ADULTS do not aggregate that the densities in ponds are potentially stress inducing. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed for all age classes in the wild and 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 and high-standard farming conditions, as we just found vague and non-species-specific information. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 almost all age classes of the species use substrate, but cages, boxes, and cement ponds are devoid of it. It is high for high-standard farming conditions given a) hatching substrate for eggs, b) earthen ponds for FRY to ADULTS which are not replaced by cement bottom and enriched with aquatic vegetation, and given c) natural reproduction with spawning substrate in earthen ponds for SPAWNERS. 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, as we just found non-species-specific information. 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 not finding anything about stunning/slaughter indicates that they probably die during processing. It is unclear for high-standard farming conditions, as we did not find hints on how to improve the situation (stunning protocols in related species or in laboratory studies). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.Side note: Domestication
Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.
What is the species’ domestication level?
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 33, 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: native and non-native waters: carnivorous, feeding primarily on FISHES as ADULTS 2 34↶9 8 15 20 16 23 21, but also on invertebrates opportunistically 18.
- FARM: no data found yet.
- LAB: fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 35 36.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
Glossary
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 33
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FISHES = Using "fishes" instead of "fish" for more than one individual - whether of the same species or not - is inspired by Jonathan Balcombe who proposed this usage in his book "What a fish knows". By referring to a group as "fishes", we acknowledge the individuals with their personalities and needs instead of an anonymous mass of "fish".
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
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 Liu, J., Y. Cui, and J. Liu. 1998. Food consumption and growth of two piscivorous fishes, the mandarin fish and the Chinese snakehead. Journal of Fish Biology 53: 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb00464.x.
3 Owens, S. J., J. S. Odenkirk, and R. Greenlee. 2008. Northern Snakehead Movement and Distribution in the Tidal Potomac River System. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 62: 161–167.
4 Lapointe, N. W. R., J. S. Odenkirk, and P. L. Angermeier. 2013. Seasonal movement, dispersal, and home range of Northern Snakehead Channa argus (Actinopterygii, Perciformes) in the Potomac River catchment. Hydrobiologia 709: 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1437-x.
5 Liu, F., X. Zhang, and G. Li. 1996. Preliminary test on artificial breeding of Channa argus. Current Fisheries 9: 8–9.
6 Chen, J., Q. Chen, and H. Huang. 2001. Preliminary study on artificial propagation of Ophiocephalus maculatus lacepede. Journal of Jimei University (Natural Science) 6: 204–209.
7 Si, Y., W. Yao, W. Li, Y. Chen, and F. Zhang. 1999. Research on propagation behavior and artificial hatching in snakehead Channa argus. Freshwater Fisheries 29: 3–5.
8 Courtenay Jr., W. R., and J. D. Williams. 2004. Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae): A biological synopsis and risk assessment. 1251. U.S. Geological Survey.
9 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2023. Snakehead (Channa argus): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web eletronic publication. FishBase.
10 Landis, A. M. G., and N. W. R. Lapointe. 2010. First Record of a Northern Snakehead ( Channa argus Cantor) Nest in North America. Northeastern Naturalist 17: 325–332.
11 Soin, S. G. 1960. Reproduction and development of the snakehead Ophiocephalus argus warpachowskii (Berg). Issues in Ichthyology - USSR Academy of Science 15: 127–137.
12 Love, J. W., J. J. Newhard, and B. Greenfield. 2015. A Geospatial Approach for Estimating Suitable Habitat and Population Size of the Invasive Northern Snakehead. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 6: 145–157. https://doi.org/10.3996/102014-JFWM-075.
13 Bogutskaya, Nina. 2002. Personal communication.
14 Okada, Y. 1960. Studies of the freshwater fishes of Japan, II, Special part: PrefecturalUniversity of Mie. Journal of the Faculty of Fisheries 4: 1–860.
15 Odenkirk, J., and S. Owens. 2005. Northern Snakeheads in the Tidal Potomac River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 1605–1609. https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-085.1.
16 Cohen, M., J. McDonald, and A. M. Brinton. 2011. Northern Snakeheads in Two New York City Lakes over Four Years. In American Fisheries Society 140th Annual Meeting.
17 Odenkirk, J., C. Lim, S. Owens, and M. Isel. 2013. Insight into Age and Growth of Northern Snakehead in the Potomac River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 33: 773–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2013.806382.
18 Cohen, M. K., and J. A. MacDonald. 2016. Northern Snakeheads in New York City. Northeastern Naturalist 23: 11–24.
19 Odenkirk, J. S., and M. W. Isel. 2016. Trends in Abundance of Northern Snakeheads in Virginia Tributaries of the Potomac River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145: 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2016.1149516.
20 Odenkirk, J., and S. Owens. 2007. Expansion of a Northern Snakehead Population in the Potomac River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1633–1639. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-025.1.
21 Love, J. W., and J. J. Newhard. 2021. Using Published Information to Predict Consumption by Northern Snakehead in Maryland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 150: 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/tafs.10306.
22 Lapointe, N. W. R., J. T. Thorson, and P. L. Angermeier. 2010. Seasonal meso- and microhabitat selection by the northern snakehead (Channa argus) in the Potomac river system. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19: 566–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2010.00437.x.
23 Saylor, R. K., N. W. R. Lapointe, and P. L. Angermeier. 2012. Diet of non-native northern snakehead (Channa argus) compared to three co-occurring predators in the lower Potomac River, USA. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 21: 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2012.00563.x.
24 Bunch, A. J., J. S. Odenkirk, M. W. Isel, and R. C. Boyce. 2019. Spatiotemporal Patterns and Dispersal Mechanisms of Northern Snakehead in Virginia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 88. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10556.49286/2.
25 Newhard, Josh. USFWS. Personal communication.
26 Nikol’skiy, G. V. 1956. Ryby basseyna Amura [Fishes of the Amur Basin]. Moscow, Russia: USSR Academy of Sciences.
27 Novikov, N.P., A.S. Sokolovsky, T.G. Sokolovskaya, and Y.M. Yakovlev. 2002. The fishes of Primorye. Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai, RUssia: Far Eastern State Tech. Fish. Univ.
28 Berg, L. S. 1965. Freshwater fishes of the USSR and adjacent countries, Vol. III. 4th: Translated from Russian; original 1949, Jerusalem, Israel Program for Scientific Translations.
29 Dukravets, G. M., and A. I. Machulin. 1978. The morphology and ecology of the Amur snakehead, Ophiocephalus argus warpachowskii, acclimatized in the Syr Dar’ya basin. Journal of Ichthyology 18: 203–208.
30 Landis, A. M. G., N. W. R. Lapointe, and P. L. Angermeier. 2011. Individual growth and reproductive behavior in a newly established population of northern snakehead (Channa argus), Potomac River, USA. Hydrobiologia 661: 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0509-z.
31 Odenkirk, J. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Personal communication.
32 Qiufen, D., P. Zhidong, M. Gaoshang, Z. Song, and Y. Yong. 2013. Hybrid snakehead fish farming in China. AQUA Culture Asia Pacific Magazine.
33 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.
34 Guseva, L.N. 1990. Food and feeding ratios of the Amur Snakehead, Channo argus warpachowskii in water bodies in the lower reaches of the Amu Darya. Journal of Ichthyology 30: 11–21.
35 Miao, S., C. Zhao, J. Zhu, J. Hu, X. Dong, and L. Sun. 2018. Dietary soybean meal affects intestinal homoeostasis by altering the microbiota, morphology and inflammatory cytokine gene expression in northern snakehead. Scientific Reports 8: 113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18430-7.
36 Miao, S., J. Zhu, C. Zhao, L. Sun, X. Dong, and G. Chen. 2019. Effect of dietary soybean meal associated with feeding time on the growth performance and intestinal microbiota composition of northern snakehead. Aquaculture Research 50: 2751–2759. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14035.
