Information
Version: B | 1.3 (2022-07-29)
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
Labeo catla is among the most cultured fishes in India, belonging to the Indian major carps together with Cirrhinus mrigala and L. rohita. The wild populations of this freshwater carp can be found in reservoirs and riverine areas in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Burma. Despite that, there is limited information about this species in natural conditions, especially about home range, depth range, substrate, and aggregation needs. L. catla is a surface feeder and is often raised in polyculture systems with other carps, presenting better performance when aggregated with species of different feeding habits. Structures such as bamboo poles can be used as periphyton substrate in these polycultures, but not for feeding L. catla but instead for feeding other carp species and thereby reducing competition for planktons. Although its entire life cycle is closed in captivity, it is necessary to induce the reproduction by hormonal manipulation. Moreover, there is no information about adults under farming conditions, probably because this species is sold before reaching maturity. It is a common practice in large farms that fishes are just washed thoroughly in water, packed with crushed ice at a ratio of 1:1 in rectangular plastic crates, and transported for long distances to be sold as fresh as possible. Thus, further research is needed on the stunning and slaughter process, besides the stress response of this species.
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 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. 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 farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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 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 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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. 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?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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 4 30, 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: probably omnivorous 3. FARM: historically, mostly plant-based feed, but increase of fish meal and fish oil for growth benefits 3. (The small part of) fish oil may be partly* replaced 31; fish meal may be partly to mostly* replaced 14.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
Glossary
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 30
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
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
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 Ghosh, A., B.C. Mohapatra, P.P. Chakrabarti, A. Hussan, and A. Das. 2019. Induced breeding of Catla catla carried out at low temperature in FRP carp hatchery of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Environmental Biology 40: 328–334. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/40/3/MRN-768.
3 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.
4 Rai, Sunila, Yang Yi, Md Abdul Wahab, Amrit N Bart, and James S Diana. 2008. Comparison of rice straw and bamboo stick substrates in periphyton‐based carp polyculture systems. Aquaculture Research 39: 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01898.x.
5 Rai, S., Y. Yi, Md. Wahab, A. Bart, and J.S. Diana. 2010. Comparison of the Growth and Production of Carps in Polyculture Ponds with Supplemental Feed using Rice Straw and Kanchi as Substrates. Our Nature 8: 92–105. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v8i1.4316.
6 Azim, M. E., M. A. Wahab, A. A. van Dam, M. C. M. Beveridge, E. A. Huisman, and M. C. J. Verdegem. 2001. Optimization of stocking ratios of two Indian major carps, rohu (Labeo rohita Ham.) and catla (Catla catla Ham.) in a periphyton-based aquaculture system. Aquaculture 203: 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00602-0.
7 Azim, M.E., M.M. Rahaman, M.A. Wahab, T. Asaeda, D. C. Little, and M.C.J. Verdegem. 2004. Periphyton-based pond polyculture system: a bioeconomic comparison of on-farm and on-station trials. Aquaculture 242: 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.008.
8 Azim, M.E., M.A. Wahab, P.K. Biswas, T. Asaeda, T. Fujino, and M.C.J. Verdegem. 2004. The effect of periphyton substrate density on production in freshwater polyculture ponds. Aquaculture 232: 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.08.010.
9 Mahboob, S. 2014. Replacing Fish Meal With a Blend of Alternative Plant Proteins and its Effect on the Growth Performance of Catla catla and Hypophthalmichthys molitrix. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 747–752: 6.
10 Alim, Muhammed Abdul, Muhammed Abdul Wahab, and Ana Milstein. 2005. Effects of increasing the stocking density of large carps by 20% on ‘cash’ carp–small fish polyculture of Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 36: 317–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01199.x.
11 Milstein, A., A. Kadir, and M. A. Wahab. 2008. The effects of partially substituting Indian carps or adding silver carp on polycultures including small indigenous fish species (SIS). Aquaculture 279: 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.04.009.
12 Keshavanath, P., T.J. Ramesh, B. Gangadhar, M.C.M. Beveridge, A.A. van Dam, and M.C.J. Verdegem. 2001. On-farm evaluation of Indian major carp production with sugarcane bagasse as substrate for periphyton. Asian Fisheries Science 14: 367–376.
13 Sahu, P. K., J. K. Jena, P. C. Das, S. Mondal, and R. Das. 2007. Production performance of Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) in polyculture with three Indian major carps Catla catla (Hamilton), Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton) with provision of fertilizers, feed and periphytic substrate as varied inputs. Aquaculture 262: 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.11.016.
14 Karim, Aasia, and Mohammad Shoaib. 2019. Influence of Corn Gluten Meal on Growth Parameters and Carcass Composition of Indian Major Carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirhinus mrigala). Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 19: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v19_1_01.
15 Mohanty, R. K. 2004. Density-dependent growth performance of Indian major carps in rainwater reservoirs. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20: 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2003.00532.x.
16 Sarkar, S. K., A. Saha, S. Dasgupta, S. Nandi, D. K. Verma, P. Routray, C. Devaraj, et al. 2010. Photothermal manipulation of reproduction in Indian major carp: a step forward for off-season breeding and seed production. Current Science (00113891) 99: 960–964.
17 Sachidanandamurthy, K. L., and H. N. Yajurvedi. 2008. A study on growth co-efficient and relative condition factor of the major carp (Catla catla) in two lakes differing in water quality. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 6: 33–47.
18 Halls, A. S., D. D. Hoggarth, and K. Debnath. 1998. Impact of flood control schemes on river fish migrations and species assemblages in Bangladesh. Journal of Fish Biology 53: 358–380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01037.x.
19 Johal, M. S., and K. K. Tandon. 1992. Age and growth of the carp Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822) from northern India. Fisheries Research 14: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(92)90075-5.
20 Sharma, J.G., S.P. Singh, P. Mittal, and R. Chakrabarti. 2014. Impact of Temperature Gradient on the Indian Major Carp Catla catla Larvae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. India. Section B? Biological Sciences 86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-014-0419-3.
21 Alikunhi, K. H. 1957. Fish culture in India.
22 Jena, J.K. 2009. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Catla catla. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
23 Varghese, T. J., and G.P. S. Rao. 1976. Induced spawning of the Chinese silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (C. and V.) and the Indian major carp, Catla catla (Ham.) using marine catfish pituitary extract. In , 417–419. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
24 Fatima, Shafaq, Shadab Izhar, Zaeema Usman, Farzana Rashid, Zakia Kanwal, Ghazala Jabeen, and Asma Abdul Latif. 2018. Effects of High Stocking Density on Condition Factor and Profile of Free Thyroxine and Cortisol in Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822) and Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822). Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 18. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v18_1_25.
25 Chatterjee, Nirupama, Asim K Pal, Tilak Das, Manush S Mohammed, Kamal Sarma, Gudipati Venkateshwarlu, and Subhas C Mukherjee. 2006. Secondary stress responses in Indian major carps Labeo rohita (Hamilton), Catla catla (Hamilton) and Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton) fry to increasing packing densities. Aquaculture Research 37: 472–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01469.x.
26 Rath, S.C., S.D. Gupta, and S. Dasgupta. 1995. Common embryonic abnormalities of Indian major carps bred in indoor hatchery systems. Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics 10: 193–199.
27 Wani, MA, and SPS Dutta. 2014. First Record of an Anomalous Catla catla (Ham. Buch) in Fresh Water Fish Ponds of Gurdaspur District, Punjab (India). Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development 5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.1000246.
28 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.
29 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.
30 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
31 Manjappa, K., P. Keshavanath, and B. Gangadhar. 2016. Growth response of Catla catla (Hamilton,1822) raised in manured tanks on low fishmeal diets,with a note on carcass composition and digestive enzyme activity. Indian Journal of Fisheries 63: 96–103. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2016.63.4.52678-15.
