Information
Version: C | 1.0 (2022-12-10)
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
Leptobarbus hoevenii is a tropical freshwater carp that is native to Asia waters. It is a BENTHOPELAGIC fish that can be found in lakes, rivers, streams and floodplains of Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand. The populations of this carp have decreased over the years probably due to increasing human activities, such as construction of dams, deforestation, use of fertilisers and pesticides for farming, and mass exploitation of this fish. Its flesh is rich in protein, vitamin B, and minerals, but probably because of eating parenchyma and seeds of the chaulmoogra tree (Hydnocarpus) falling into the streams, this carp is reported to become intoxicated, so that eating its flesh can cause nausea in humans. Despite that, L. hoevenii has a high commercial value among the cyprinids that have been successfully bred for farming, being an important species for aquaculture in several Southeast Asian countries. Cambodians and Vietnamese praise this fish highly. Moreover, this carp has already been introduced into several countries, as Taiwan and China, both for aquaculture and as an ornamental species. However, important wild and farm information about this carp is still missing in the literature, like home range and substrate use in natural conditions and more specific data about wild aggregation patterns as well as aggression, stress response, and malformation rates under farming conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to better evaluate and improve the welfare of L. hoevenii.
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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for 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 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 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. 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 24, 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: herbivorous 11 or omnivorous 12-7 17 13-7 3 9.
- FARM: no data found yet
- LAB: no data found yet
Glossary
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 24
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
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
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 Lim, L.-S., H.-L. Au, T. Amornsakun, P. Musikarun, H. J. Liew, K. A. Tan, M. T. M. Lal, Y. Mukai, and G. Kawamura. 2022. Sense organs development in larvae of the Sultan fish Leptobarbus hoevenii. Fisheries Science 88: 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-022-01602-4.
3 Kamarudin, M. K. A., M. Idris, and M. E. Toriman. 2013. ANALYSIS OF LEPTOBARBUS HOEVENII IN CONTROL ENVIRONMENT AT NATURAL LAKES. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8: 142–148. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajabssp.2013.142.148.
4 Saidin, T. B., A. A. B. Othman, and M. Z. B. Sulaiman. 1988. Induced spawning techniques practised at Batu Berendam, Melaka, Malaysia. Aquaculture 74: 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(88)90082-8.
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 Dahril, T., and M. Ahmad. 1988. The growth of “ikan lemak”, (Leptobarbus hoeveni Blkr)receiving a pelleted supplemental feed and human excreta in floating cages. In Proceedings of the Asian seminar on aquaculture organized by IFS, 110–115. Mâlang, Indonesia: E. A. Huisman, N. Zonneveld & A. H. M. Bouwmans.
7 Lim, L.-S., T. Amornsakun, H.-L. Au, A. D. Tuzan, H. J. Liew, Y. Mukai, S. Mustafa, and G. Kawamura. 2021. Vision-mediated feeding behaviour of early juvenile Sultan fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii. Aquaculture Research 52: 1784–1787. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15013.
8 Srithongthum, Sajeenuth, Au Hsein Loong, Thumronk Amornsakun, Poramat Musikarun, Siti Fatihah, Nur Fatihah Abd Halid, and Leong-Seng Lim. 2021. Observation on the embryonic development of Sultan fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii. AACL Bioflux 14: 1359–1364.
9 Termvidchakorn, A., and K. G. Hortle. 2013. A guide to larvae and juveniles of some common fish species from the Mekong River Basin. 38. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh.
10 Christensen, M. 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.
11 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Leptobarbus hoevenii, Hovens carp: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
12 Roberts, T. R. 1989. The freshwater fishes of Western Borneo (Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia). Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 14: 210.
13 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
14 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.
15 Meenakarn, S. 1986. Induced spawning on Leptobarbus hoevenii (Bleeker) carried out in Jambi, Indonesia. Collaborative project of The Directorate General of Fisheries, Indonesia and the United States Agency for international development. Jakarta, Indonesia.
16 Srithongthum, S., T. Amornsakun, P. Musikarun, P. Promkaew, A. H. Loong, G. Kawamura, M. T. M. Lal, and L.-S. Lim. 2020. Length-weight relationship and relative condition factor of the Sultan fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii broodstock farmed in earthen ponds. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 24: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejabf.2020.91657.
17 NOT FOUND
18 Srithongthum, S., H.-L. Au, T. Amornsakun, P. Musikarun, W. J. Mok, N. F. A. Halid, G. Kawamura, and L. S. Lim. 2021. Reproductive Characteristics of the Pond-Farmed Sultan Fish (Leptobarbus hoevenii). Jurnal Ilmiah Perikanan dan Kelautan 13: 171–180. https://doi.org/10.20473/jipk.v13i2.27264.
19 Pathmasothy, S. 1986. The Effect of Three Diets with Variable Protein Levels on Ovary Development and Fecundity in Leptobarbus hoe venii. In Finfish Nutrtion in Asia: Methodological Approaches to Research and Development, 55:75. Ottawa Canada: International Development Research Centre.
20 Jena, J. K. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Labeo rohita. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
