Information
Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: C | 1.0Published: 2025-08-18
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
Colossoma macropomum is a tropical freshwater and long-lived fish that is naturally found in fast-moving and warm waters of Amazon and Orinoco basins in South America, including Brazil, Venezuela, Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia. It is a BENTHOPELAGIC species with a solitary habit. C. macropomum is an omnivorous fish with an exceptionally wide range of natural foods because of its special teeth and filtering apparatus, with fruits, seeds, grains, and zooplankton as the most important natural food. JUVENILES remain in flooded forests and floodplain lakes, while ADULTS migrate seasonally between spawning and feeding grounds.
In aquaculture, its production has spread in South and Central Americas, some Caribbean countries, and various countries in Asia, particularly China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Viet Nam. C. macropomum is the main fish species farmed in the Amazon and one of the most largely produced freshwater FISHES in South America, especially in Brazil. It is also used as an ornamental fish. This species is cultured both in monocultures or polycultures (mostly in ponds) and has some advantages for fish farming like being easily handled, able to live in poor waters, expressing high resistance to diseases, consuming artificial feed, and exhibiting satisfactory growth rates and food conversion indexes.
Other than that, important information about its natural behaviours are still missing, especially about home range, which makes its welfare assessment a challenge. More research addressing migration, substrate, and malformations under farming conditions are also needed, and a high-standard slaughter method is yet to be defined. Additionally, C. macropomum is slaughtered before reaching maturity, thus there is not much information about ADULTS in farms.
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 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 some ponds, cages, and channels do not cover the higher end of the depth range in the wild. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as ponds and cages are easily imaginable to cover the whole depth range in the wild (<3 m). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed on wild and farm.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 (even though of unknown distance), 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 but judging by the relatively sedentary habit). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on specific migration distances in the wild.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 (IND kept separately, biopsy/cannulation, hormonal manipulation, stripping), and there are no hints on improvement verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a high 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 low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as densities in tanks, cages, and ponds go beyond the range of the aggregation densities in the wild (except probably for SPAWNERS) and are stress inducing. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed on specific wild densities for LARVAE, FRY, and SPAWNERS.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 the species is aggressive – even cannibalistic – from LARVAE to JUVENILES. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as ways to reduce (but not avoid) aggression (feed, density, right polyculture partners) are verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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 all age classes of the species are found close to substrate, but tanks, cages, and some ponds are devoid of it. It is high for high-standard farming conditions given a) earthen ponds for FRY to ADULTS which are not replaced by concrete bottom and are equipped with hay stacks and sprinkled with rice husks as is verified for FRY and b) tanks with floating covers for SPAWNERS. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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, handling, hypoxia, densities, 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 high amount of evidence, as it seems clear that stress cannot be avoided.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 and contradictory data. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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 (asphyxia, hypothermia, live processing). It is unclear for high-standard farming conditions, as we did not find proof for stunning (that induces unconsciousness fast) and killing (while still unconscious) verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed.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 456, 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 43 38 36 4 1 with fruits, seeds, nuts, leaves, roots, grains, and zooplankton as the most important natural food 43 38 57 36 4.
- FARM: no data found yet.
- LAB: fish meal may be partly* 58 59 or completely* 60 replaced by sustainable sources in a diet with no fish oil. Fish oil may be completely* replaced by sustainable sources in a diet with no fish meal 61.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
Side note: Commercial relevance
How much is this species farmed annually?
104,140 t/year 1990-2019 amounting to estimated 52,000,000-208,000,000 IND/year 1990-2019 62.
Glossary
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 56
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
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
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
2 Santos, F. A. C., G. S. C. Julio, F. S. Batista, L. N. L. Miranda, P. P. C. Pedras, and R. K. Luz. 2022. High stocking densities in the larviculture of Colossoma macropomum in a recirculating aquaculture system: Performance, survival and economic viability. Aquaculture 552: 738016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738016.
3 Souza, F. N., E. F. F. Martins, R. A. C. Corrêa Filho, J. S. Abreu, L. B. Pires, D. P. Streit Jr., N. M. Lopera-Barrero, and J. A. Povh. 2018. Ovopel® and carp pituitary extract for induction of reproduction in Colossoma macropomum females. Animal Reproduction Science 195: 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.05.005.
4 Woynárovich, A., and R. V. Anrooy. 2019. Field guide to the culture of tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum, Cuvier, 1816). Rome: FAO (FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS).
5 Almeida, C. A. L., J. S. Vieira, V. T. Zancanela, A. P. D. Vesco, J. W. S. Oliveira, P. G. Rodrigues, G. M. Oliveira-Júnior, and C. O. Brito. 2019. Desenvolvimento Embrionário E O Efeito De Diferentes Dietas No Desempenho De Pós-Larvas De Tambaqui. Interciencia 44: 637–643.
6 Moraes, Thayssa Cristina Hortences de, Celma Maria Ferreira, Kamyla Fernanda da Silva Gama, Márcio Aquio Hoshiba, Jayme Aparecido Povh, and Janessa Sampaio de Abreu. 2017. Routine exposure to biometric procedures in fish farming reveals differences in stress response in tambaqui and hybrid tambatinga. Bol. Inst. Pesca (Impr.): 1–10.
7 Teichert-Coddington, D. R. 1996. Effect of stocking ratio on semi-intensive polyculture of Colossoma macropomum and Oreochromis niloticus in Honduras, Central America. Aquaculture 143: 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(96)01271-9.
8 Almeida, F. L., J. S. Lopes, R. Crescencio, A. C. U. Izel, E. C. Chagas, and C. Boijink. 2016. Early puberty of farmed tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum): Possible influence of male sexual maturation on harvest weight. Aquaculture 452: 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.10.031.
9 Gomes, L. C., R. Roubach, C. A. R. M. Araujo-Lima, A. R. Chippari-Gomes, N. P. Lopes, and E. C. Urbinati. 2003. Effect of Fish Density During Transportation on Stress and Mortality of Juvenile Tambaqui Colossoma macropomum. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 34: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2003.tb00041.x.
10 Gomes, L. C., C. A. R. M. Araujo-Lima, R. Roubach, and E. C. Urbinati. 2003. Avaliação dos efeitos da adição de sal e da densidade no transporte de tambaqui. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 38: 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2003000200016.
11 Silva, A. M. D., L. C. Gomes, and R. Roubach. 2007. Growth, yield, water and effluent quality in ponds with different management during tambaqui juvenile production. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 42. Embrapa Secretaria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira: 733–740. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2007000500017.
12 Gomes, L. C., and C. R. Silva. 2009. Impact of pond management on tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier), production during growth-out phase. Aquaculture Research 40: 825–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02170.x.
13 Chagas, E. C., C. L. Boijink, C. Li. Boijink, L. A. K. A. Inoue, L. C. Gomes, and F. R. Moraes. 2012. Respostas de tambaquis ao estresse por transporte após alimentação com dietas suplementadas com b-glucano. Biotemas 25: 221–227.
14 Mendes, J. M., J. K. Dairiki, L. A. K. A. Inoue, and R. S. Jesus. 2017. Advantages of recovery from pre-slaughter stress in tambaqui Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier 1816) agroindustry in the Amazon. Food Science and Technology 37. Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos: 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-457X.14316.
15 Flickinger, D. L., G. A. Costa, D. P. Dantas, P. Moraes-Valenti, and W. C. Valenti. 2019. The budget of nitrogen in the grow-out of the Amazon river prawn (Macrobrachium amazonicum Heller) and tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum Cuvier) farmed in monoculture and in integrated multitrophic aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Research 50: 3444–3461. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14304.
16 Flickinger, D. L., G. A. Costa, D. P. Dantas, D. C. Proença, F. S. David, R. M. Durborow, P. Moraes-Valenti, and W. C. Valenti. 2020. The budget of carbon in the farming of the Amazon river prawn and tambaqui fish in earthen pond monoculture and integrated multitrophic systems. Aquaculture Reports 17: 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100340.
17 Lima, J. F., D. Montagner, S. S. Duarte, E. T. O. Yoshioka, M. K. R. Dias, and M. Tavares-Dias. 2019. Recirculating system using biological aerated filters on tambaqui fingerling farming. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 54. Embrapa Secretaria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira: e00294. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00294.
18 Brandão, F. R., L. C. Gomes, E. C. Chagas, and L. D. Araújo. 2004. Densidade de estocagem de juvenis de tambaqui durante a recria em tanques-rede. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 39: 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2004000400009.
19 Silva, C. R., L. C. Gomes, and F. R. Brandão. 2007. Effect of feeding rate and frequency on tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) growth, production and feeding costs during the first growth phase in cages. Aquaculture 264: 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.007.
20 Silva, C. A., and R. Y. Fujimoto. 2015. Crescimento de tambaqui em resposta a densidade de estocagem em tanques-rede. Acta Amazonica 45: 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201402205.
21 Merola, N., and J. H. de Souza. 1988. Cage culture of the Amazon fish tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum, at two stocking densities. Aquaculture 71: 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(88)90269-4.
22 Gomes, L. C., E. C. Chagas, H. Martins-Junior, R. Roubach, E. A. Ono, and J. N. de Paula Lourenço. 2006. Cage culture of tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) in a central Amazon floodplain lake. Aquaculture 253: 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.08.020.
23 Frisso, R. M., F. T. Matos, G. V. Moro, and B. O. Mattos. 2020. Stocking density of Amazon fish (Colossoma macropomum) farmed in a continental neotropical reservoir with a net cages system. Aquaculture 529: 735702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735702.
24 Tavares-Dias, M., E. F. S. Sandrim, F. R. Moraes, and P. C. F. Carneiro. 2001. Resposta fisiológica do tambaqui Colossoma macropomum (Characidae) ao estresse agudo. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 27: 43–48.
25 Silva, A. D. R., R. B. Santos, A. M. S. S. Bruno, and E. C. Soares. 2013. Cultivo de tambaqui em canais de abastecimento sob diferentes densidades de peixes. Acta Amazonica 43. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia: 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672013000400014.
26 Santos, Fabio A. C., T. P. Boaventura, G. S. da Costa Julio, P. P. Cortezzi, L. G. Figueiredo, G. C. Favero, G. D. A. Palheta, N. F. A. C. de Melo, and R. K. Luz. 2021. Growth performance and physiological parameters of Colossoma macropomum in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS): Importance of stocking density and classification. Aquaculture 534: 736274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736274.
27 dos Santos, R. B., J. Izel-Silva, M. M. S. Fugimura, S. M. Suita, E. A. Ono, and E. G. Affonso. 2021. Growth performance and health of juvenile tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum, in a biofloc system at different stocking densities. Aquaculture Research 52: 3549–3559. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15196.
28 Chellappa, S., M. S. R. F. Cacho, F. A. Huntingford, and M. C. M. Beveridge. 1996. Observations on induced breeding of the Amazonian fish tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier) using CPE and HCG treatments. Aquaculture Research 27: 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1996.tb00971.x.
29 Muniz, José Antônio Salgado de Moura, Maria Teresa Jansem de Almeida Catanho, and Athiê Jorge Guerra dos Santos. 2008. Influência do fotoperíodo natural na reprodução induzida do tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1818). Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 34: 205–211.
30 Pires, L. B., R. A. C. Corrêa Filho, E. A. Sanches, E. Romagosa, T. G. Silva, S. Rech, D. P. Streit, and J. A. Povh. 2018. Colossoma macropomum females can reproduce more than once in the same reproductive period. Animal Reproduction Science 196: 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.07.006.
31 Oliveira, R. G. S., G. B. Souza, A. N. Maria, R. A. de Freitas, and F. L. de Almeida. 2023. Effects of GnRH analogs on strip spawning and steroid plasma levels of Colossoma macropomum. Aquaculture International. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-023-01201-9.
32 Maria, A. N., H. C. Azevedo, J. P. Santos, and P. C. F. Carneiro. 2011. Hormonal induction and semen characteristics of tambaqui Colossoma macropomum. Zygote 20. Cambridge University Press: 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199410000559.
33 Martins, E. F. F., D. P. Streit Jr., J. S. Abreu, R. A. C. Corrêa-Filho, C. A. L. Oliveira, N. M. Lopera-Barrero, and J. A. Povh. 2017. Ovopel and carp pituitary extract for the reproductive induction of Colossoma macropomum males. Theriogenology 98: 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.04.047.
34 Konzen-Freitas, A. R., J. G. Abreu, J. S. Abreu, V. L. Q. Dantas, R. A. C. Corrêa Filho, and J. A. Povh. 2020. Tambaqui females (Colossoma macropomum) spawn after hormonal induction with buserelin acetate. Animal Reproduction Science 221: 106594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106594.
35 Araujo-Lima, C., and M. Goulding. 1997. So Fruitful a Fish: Conservation Ecology of the Amazon’s Tambaqui. New York: Columbia University Press.
36 Castello, L., P. B. Bayley, N. N. Fabré, and V. S. Batista. 2019. Flooding effects on abundance of an exploited, long-lived fish population in river-floodplains of the Amazon. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29: 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09559-x.
37 Villacorta-Correa, M. A., and U. Saint-Paul. 1999. Structural indexes and sexual maturity of tambaqui Colossoma macropomum (cuvier, 1818) (Characiformes: Characidae) in Central Amazon, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 59. Instituto Internacional de Ecologia: 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71081999000400013.
38 Goulding, M., and M. L. Carvalho. 1982. Life history and management of the tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum, Characidae): an important Amazonian food fish. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 1. Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia: 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81751982000200001.
39 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2024. Colossoma macropomum, Cachama: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
40 Bayley, P. B. 1983. Central Amazon fish populations biomass, production and some dynamic characteristics. Dalhousie University.
41 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.
42 Farias, I. P., J. P. Torrico, C. García-Dávila, M. C.. F. Santos, T. Hrbek, and J.-F. Renno. 2010. Are rapids a barrier for floodplain fishes of the Amazon basin? A demographic study of the keystone floodplain species Colossomamacropomum (Teleostei: Characiformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56: 1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2010.03.028.
43 Goulding, M., and P. M. Goulding. 1980. The Fishes and the Forest: Explorations in Amazonian Natural History. University of California Press.
44 Lopera-Barrero, N. M., R. P. Ribeiro, J. A. Povh, L. D. V. Mendez, and A. R. Poveda-Parra. 2011. Production of aquatic organisms - an overview in Brazil and in the world. Guaíba, RS, Brazil: Agrolivros.
45 Leite, L. V., M. a. P. Melo, F. C. E. Oliveira, J. P. S. Pinheiro, C. C. Campello, J. F. Nunes, and C. S. B. Salmito-Vanderley. 2013. Determinação da dose inseminante e embriogênese na fertilização artificial de tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 65. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Escola de Veterinária: 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-09352013000200018.
46 de Souza e Silva, W., A. L. Ferreira, L. do Carmo Neves, N. S. Ferreira, G. D. A. Palheta, R. Takata, and R. K. Luz. 2021. Effects of stocking density on survival, growth and stress resistance of juvenile tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) reared in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS). Aquaculture International 29: 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-021-00647-z.
47 de Wandel, Ray. 2017. Personal communication.
48 Barbas, L. A. L., P. M. Pereira-Cardona, L. C. Maltez, L. O. Garcia, J. M. Monserrat, and L. A. Sampaio. 2017. Anaesthesia and transport of juvenile tambaqui Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1818) with tricaine methane-sulphonate: Implications on secondary and oxidative stress responses. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 33: 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13382.
49 Barbas, L. A. L., E. R. L. de Araújo, M. F. Torres, L. C. Maltez, L. O. Garcia, B. M. Heinzmann, and L. A. Sampaio. 2020. Stress relieving potential of two plant-based sedatives in the transport of juvenile tambaqui Colossoma macropomum. Aquaculture 520: 734681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734681.
50 Santos, E. L. R., F. P. Rezende, and S. E. Moron. 2020. Stress-related physiological and histological responses of tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) to transportation in water with tea tree and clove essential oil anesthetics. Aquaculture 523: 735164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735164.
51 Brandão, F. R., W. P. Duncan, C. F. S. Farias, D. C. de Melo Souza, Maria Inês Braga de Oliveira, M. J. S. Rocha, P. C. Monteiro, et al. 2022. Essential oils of Lippia sidoides and Mentha piperita as reducers of stress during the transport of Colossoma macropomum. Aquaculture 560: 738515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738515.
52 Mazini, B. S. M., G. P. Martins, L. L. C. Menezes, and I. G. Guimarães. 2022. Nutritional feed additives reduce the adverse effects of transport stress in the immune system of Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Fish and Shellfish Immunology Reports 3: 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsirep.2022.100051.
53 Araújo, L. D., E. C. Chagas, L. C. Gomes, and F. R. Brandão. 2004. Efeito de banhos terapêuticos com formalina sobre indicadores de estresse em tambaqui. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 39. Embrapa Secretaria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira: 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2004000300003.
54 Ruiz-Jarabo, I., R. D. Amanajás, B. Baldisserotto, J. M. Mancera, and A. L. Val. 2020. Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) acclimated to different tropical waters from the Amazon basin shows specific acute-stress responses. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 245: 110706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.110706.
55 Frimodt, C. 1995. Multilingual illustrated guide to the world s commercial warmwater fish. Osney Mead, Oxford, England: Fishing News Books.
56 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.
57 NOT FOUND
58 Pereira Junior, G., M. Pereira Filho, R. Roubach, P. S. Barbosa, and E. Shimoda. 2013. Farinha de folha de leucena (Leucaena leucocephala Lam. de wit) como fonte de proteína para juvenis de tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum CUVIER, 1818). Acta Amazonica 43. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia: 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672013000200014.
59 Martins, G. P., B. S. M. Mazini, M. A. F. Campos, D. S. Oliveira, and I. G. Guimarães. 2020. Effect of replacing fish meal protein by crystalline amino acid and soy protein concentrate on growth, feed utilization, and metabolism of tambaqui Colossoma macropomum juveniles. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 51: 1250–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12688.
60 Morillo, M., T. Visbal, L. Rial, F. Ovalles, P. Aguirre, and A. L. Medina. 2013. Alimentación de alevines de Colossoma macropomum con dietas a base de Erythrina edulis y soya. Interciência 38: 121–127.
61 Pereira, R. T., R. R. Paulino, C. A. L. de Almeida, P. V. Rosa, T. M. Orlando, and R. Fortes-Silva. 2018. Oil sources administered to tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum): growth, body composition and effect of masking organoleptic properties and fasting on diet preference. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 199: 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.10.004.
62 Mood, Alison, Elena Lara, Natasha K. Boyland, and Phil Brooke. 2023. Estimating global numbers of farmed fishes killed for food annually from 1990 to 2019. Animal Welfare 32. Cambridge University Press: e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.4.
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
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.