Information
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-09-24)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
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
Cirrhinus microlepis is a freshwater medium-sized carp that can be naturally found in large and medium-sized rivers and lowland floodplains of Chao Phraya and Mekong basins in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. It is one of the most important fish species for those regional fisheries. Besides increased fishing, the factors that have probably contributed to an overall decline of natural populations of C. microlepis over the years are hydrological and hydraulic changes, habitat degradation, water pollution, loss of habitat connectivity, climate change, increasing land use for crops, and introduction of alien fishes for aquacultural purposes. This has stimulated the development of aquaculture of this species. Even the fish weights and lengths for several individuals are decreasing at some places, like Tonle Sap lake in Cambodia. It is now considered a vulnerable species in the IUCN Red List. Because most wild information about C. microlepis is missing, it is difficult to know its natural needs and behaviours that are important to evaluate its welfare state under farming conditions. Even farm information is scarce about this species, and most of what is known is about carps in general. Further research is urgently needed to better assess and improve the welfare of C. microlepis.
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. Our conclusion is based on a low 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low 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. 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 and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low 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. Our conclusion is based on a low 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. 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?
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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. 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 2 19, 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 6 9 15 3, youngs more herbivorous 3. FARM: no supplemental feed provided to paddy fields 3.
Glossary
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 19
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, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
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 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.
3 Saowakoon, S., K. Saowakoon, A. Jutagate, M. Hiroki, M. Fukushima, and T. Jutagate. 2021. Growth and feeding behavior of fishes in organic rice–fish systems with various species combinations. Aquaculture Reports 20: 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100663.
4 Srun, Phallavan, and Peng Bun Ngor. 2000. The dry season migration pattern of five Mekong fish species: Riel (Henicorhynchus spp.), Chhkok (Cyclocheilichthys enoplos), Pruol (Cirrhinus microlepis), Pra (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) and Trasork (Probarbus jullieni). In Eleven Presentations given at the Annual Meeting of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 27-28 January 2000, 61–89. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Department of Fisheries - Mekong River Commission (MRC)/Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).
5 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Small scale mud carp (Cirrhinus microlepis): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
6 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
7 Poulsen, A. F., and J. Valbo-Jørgensen. 2000. Fish migrations and spawning habits in the Mekong mainstream: A survey using local knowledge. AMFC Technical Report 0005. AMFC Technical Report. Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
8 Poulsen, A. F., and J. Valbo-Jorgensen. Deep pools in the Mekong river.
9 Lim, P., S. Lek, S. T. Touch, S.-O. Mao, and B. Chhouk. 1999. Diversity and spatial distribution of freshwater fish in Great Lake and Tonle Sap river (Cambodia, Southeast Asia). Aquatic Living Resources 12: 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(99)00107-2.
10 Sokheng, C., C. K. Chhea, and J. Valbo-Jørgensen. 2001. Lateral fish migrations between the Tonle sap river and its flood plain. Proceedings of the 3rd Technical Symposium on Mekong Fisheries: 102–114.
11 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.
12 Enomoto, K., S. Ishikawa, M. Hori, H. Sitha, S. L. Song, N. Thuok, and H. Kurokura. 2011. Data mining and stock assessment of fisheries resources in Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia. Fisheries Science 77: 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-011-0378-z.
13 Ngor, P. B., K. S. McCann, G. Grenouillet, N. So, B. C. McMeans, E. Fraser, and S. Lek. 2018. Evidence of indiscriminate fishing effects in one of the world’s largest inland fisheries. Scientific Reports 8: 8947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27340-1.
14 Morioka, S. M., B. Vongvichith, P. Chanthasone, and P. Phommachan. 2021. Developmental morphology and growth in early stages of laboratory-reared Cirrhinus molitorella and C. microlepis (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Research 68: 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-021-00803-8.
15 Poulsen, Anders F., K. G. Hortle, J. Valbo-Jorgensen, S. Chan, C. K. Chhuon, Sintavong Viravong, Kongpeng Bouakhamvongsa, et al. 2004. Distribution and Ecology of Some Important Riverine Fish Species of the Mekong River Basin. MRC Technical Paper 10. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission.
16 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.