Information
Authors: Caroline Marques Maia, João L. Saraiva, Jenny Volstorf
Version: C | 3.1Published: 2024-12-31
- minor editorial changes plus new side note "Commercial relevance"
- new sources added in criterion 10 (Slaughter) resulting in changed scoring (major change)
- profile update resulting in major editorial and content changes (changing the scoring in criteria 1-3, 6, 10)
- transfer to consistent age class and label structure resulting in changed appearance
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
Penaeus vannamei is a shrimp species that naturally inhabits the eastern Pacific coast, including Mexico, Parita Gulf, Panama, and Peru. It is commonly cultured in brackish water or under low salinity conditions, being considered a promising species that has been introduced to many countries outside its native range, to western Atlantic coast and Asia, including China and Thailand. Aquaculture of this species has rapidly expanded worldwide since the early 2000s, with Southeast Asia as an important producer region.
Penaeus vannamei has some advantages for aquaculture, like its fast and good growth, a great tolerance to a wide range of water parameters and high stocking densities, high disease resistance, low protein requirements, and high survival rates. As a consequence, many countries are moving from Penaeus monodon to Penaeus vannamei as the main species in shrimp farming. Despite that, unnatural stocking densities, shallow tanks, absence of substrate in culture tanks, and the highly invasive practice of eyestalk ablation are major problems that hinder this species’ good welfare in aquaculture. Additionally, some important aspects of its natural behaviours and needs are still missing. Providing soft substrate that allows the expression of natural behaviours such as burrowing and grazing as well as reducing stocking densities are simple measures that should help improve both performance and welfare. Eyestalk ablation has been shown to be unnecessary to induce spawning and therefore should not be implemented.
Note: due to reaching maturity after the typical age and weight at slaughter, there is no age class "ADULTS" in the profile.
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?
There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the missing wild information does not allow a comparison with 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 low for minimal farming conditions, as some ponds and tanks do not cover the whole range in the wild (even if unclear for LARVAE to JUVENILES). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other ponds overlap with the (estimated) range in the wild, but ponds deep enough for SPAWNERS are unlikely. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as (more detailed) wild information is needed for LARVAE to JUVENILES.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 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 high 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 (eyestalk ablation) and may be taken from the wild. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as natural breeding with farm-reared individuals is possible and 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 farming conditions, as densities in some ponds and raceways are potentially stress inducing (even if unclear for eggs, LARVAE, and SPAWNERS). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as densities in other ponds and raceways overlap with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information is missing in eggs, LARVAE, and SPAWNERS, and further farm information is needed on density-related stress.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 aggression is present in almost all age classes. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as providing enough food and innovations to reduce aggression (directing with light, adjusted particle size) potentially work, but need to be verified for the farming context. 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 cement tanks, raceways or cages are devoid of it. It is high for high-standard farming conditions given earthen ponds or polyethylene tanks with enrichment for POST-LARVAE, JUVENILES, and SPAWNERS (at least between spawning events). Our conclusion is based on a high 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 low for minimal farming conditions, as the species is stressed (handling, abrupt changes in temperature, salinity, and light, etc.). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as improvements are easily imaginable, but need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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?
There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as some papers report malformations and others not. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as more papers are needed to be able to score.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). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as electrical stunning, followed by immersion in ice-water slurry, (probably) induces unconsciousness fast, kills while still unconscious, and is verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed to verify unconsciousness and insensibility during stunning.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 81, 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 58.
- FARM: fish meal and fish oil may be mostly* replaced by sustainable sources 83 84 67 85. POST-LARVAE: pond fertilisation will promote phytoplankton that serves as feed 13; split bamboo poles used as periphyton substrate reduced 19% of feed usage 16. Feeding on supplementary feed increased from POST-LARVAE to ADULTS 33. Replacing fish meal and fish oil by discards and fish waste from processing plants, from bycatch fisheries and from aquaculture industry is possible 13, but no replacement by non-forage fishery components or sustainable sources reported 86. Replacing fish meal mostly* or completely* by animal byproduct or plant meals should be possible 10. Fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources (Plukenetia volubilis cake), with even a better growth 22.
- LAB: fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 40.
* partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
Side note: Commercial relevance
How much is this species farmed annually?
6,825,522 t in 2022 87.
Glossary
AMPHIDROMOUS = migrating between fresh water and sea independent of spawning
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
BIOFLOC = dense microbial communities growing in flocs 25
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 82
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
MYSIS = third larval stage
NAUPLII = first larval stage after hatching
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
PLANKTONIC = horizontal movement limited to hydrodynamic displacement
POST-LARVAE = fully developed individuals, beginning of external sex differentiation
PROTOZOEA = second larval stage
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
SUB-ADULTS = juveniles transforming to fully mature adults
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Gunter, Gordon, J. Y. Christmas, and Rosamond Killebrew. 1964. Some Relations of Salinity to Population Distributions of Motile Estuarine Organisms, with Special Reference to Penaeid Shrimp. Ecology 45: 181–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937124.
3 Cook, Harry L., and M. Alice Murphy. 1969. The Culture of Larval Penaeid Shrimp. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98: 751–754. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1969)98[751:TCOLPS]2.0.CO;2.
4 Bailey-Brock, J.H., and S. M. Moss. 1992. Penaeid taxonomy, biology and zoogeography. In Marine shrimp culture: Principles and practices, 9–27. Elsevier.
5 Briggs, M. 2006. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Penaeus vannamei. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
6 Tan, J., S. Luan, B. Cao, K. Luo, X. Meng, and J. Kong. 2019. Comparison of growth and reproduction performance of broodstock Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei reared in oceanic and brackish water. Aquaculture Research 50: 1893–1902. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14075.
7 Galal, A. M., M. M. Said, and S. A. Sharaf. 2022. Reproductive Studies on Preparation of Whiteleg Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei Broodstock in Commercial Hatcheries. Journal of Animal, Poultry & Fish Production 11: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.21608/japfp.2022.284091.
8 Fast, Arlo Wade, and L James Lester. 1992. Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Vol. 23. Elsevier.
9 Balakrishnan, Gunalan, Soundarapandian Peyail, Kumaran Ramachandran, Anand Theivasigamani, Maheswaran Chokkaiah, and Pushparaj Nataraj. 2011. Growth of Cultured White Leg Shrimp Litopenaeus Vannamei (Boone 1931) In Different Stocking Density. Advances in Applied Science Research 2: 107–113.
10 Boyd, C. E., A. A. McNevin, P. Racine, H. Q. Tinh, H. N. Minh, R. Viriyatum, D. Paungkaew, and C. Engle. 2017. Resource Use Assessment of Shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodon, Production in Thailand and Vietnam. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 48: 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12394.
11 Abdelrahman, H. A., A. Abebe, and C. E. Boyd. 2019. Influence of variation in water temperature on survival, growth and yield of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in inland ponds for low-salinity culture. Aquaculture Research 50: 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13943.
12 Junda, M. 2018. Development of Intensive Shrimp Farming, Litopenaeus vannamei In Land-Based Ponds: Production and Management. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1028: 012020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012020.
13 Cuéllar-Anjel, Jorge, Cornelio Lara, Vielka Morales, Abelardo Gracia, and Óscar García Suárez. 2010. Manual of Best Management Practices for White Shrimp Penaeus vannamei Farming. Panama: OIRSA-OSPESCA.
14 Kasan, N. A., A. N. Dagang, and M. I. Abdullah. 2018. Application of biofloc technology (BFT) in shrimp aquaculture industry. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 196: 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/196/1/012043.
15 Quyen, N. T. K., H. V. Hien, Le N. D. Khoi, N. Yagi, and A. K. L. Riple. 2020. Quality Management Practices of Intensive Whiteleg Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Farming: A Study of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Sustainability 12: 4520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114520.
16 Amirtharaj, V.K.S., B. Ahilan, C.B.T. Rajagopalsamy, M. Rosalind George, and P. Jawahar. 2022. Effect of split bamboo substrate on periphyton and growth performances of Pacific white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931), in low saline groundwater culture. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 20: 2471–2484. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2003_24712484.
17 Sookying, Daranee, Fabio Soller D. Silva, D. Allen Davis, and Terrill R. Hanson. 2011. Effects of stocking density on the performance of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei cultured under pond and outdoor tank conditions using a high soybean meal diet. Aquaculture 319: 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.06.014.
18 Parnes, S, E Mills, C Segall, S Raviv, C Davis, and A Sagi. 2004. Reproductive readiness of the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei grown in a brackish water system. Aquaculture 236: 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.01.040.
19 Fast, A. W. 1992. Penaeid growout systems: an overview. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science 23: 345–353.
20 Voltolina, Domenico, Jorge E. Watson-Toscano, Emilio Romero-Beltrán, and Juan Manuel Audelo-Naranjo. 2013. Nitrogen Recycling in Closed Cultures of Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone 1931) with Different Artificial Substrates. The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 65.2013.907.
21 Otoshi, Clete A., Scott S. Naguwa, Frank C. Falesch, and Shaun M. Moss. 2007. Shrimp behavior may affect culture performance at super-intensive stocking densities. Global Aquaculture Advocate March/April: 67–69.
22 Renteria, P., A. J. Vizcaíno, M. J. Sánchez-Muros, R. A. Santacruz-Reyes, M. I. Saez, D. Fabrikov, F. G. Barroso, and M. C. Vargas-García. 2022. Effect of Replacing Fishmeal with Plukenetia volubilis Cake on Growth, Digestive Enzymes, and Body Composition in Whiteleg Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Fishes 7: 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes7050244.
23 Bray, W. A., and A. L. Lawrence. 1992. Reproduction of Penaeus species in captivity. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science 23: 93–170.
24 Palacios, Elena, Ilie S. Racolta, and Acuacultores de la Paz. 1999. Spawning Frequency Analysis of Wild and Pond-Reared Pacific White Shrimp Penaeus vannamei Broodstock under Large-Scale Hatchery Conditions. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 30: 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1999.tb00865.x.
25 Schveitzer, Rodrigo, Rafael Arantes, Manecas Francisco Baloi, Patrícia Fóes S. Costódio, Luis Vinatea Arana, Walter Quadros Seiffert, and Edemar Roberto Andreatta. 2013. Use of artificial substrates in the culture of Litopenaeus vannamei (Biofloc System) at different stocking densities: Effects on microbial activity, water quality and production rates. Aquacultural Engineering 54: 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.12.003.
26 Moctezuma, M. A., and B. F. Blake. 1981. Burrowing Activity in Penaeus Vannamei Boone from the Caimanero-Huizache Lagoon System on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 31: 312–317.
27 Rothlisberg, Peter C., John A. Church, and Andrew M. G. Forbes. 1983. Modelling the advection of vertically migrating shrimp larvae. Journal of Marine Research 41: 511–538. https://doi.org/10.1357/002224083788519759.
28 Dall, WHBJ, BJ Hill, PC Rothlisberg, DJ Sharples, and others. 1990. The biology of the Penaeidae. Advances in marine biology 27.
29 Medina-Reyna, C. E. 2001. Growth and emigration of white shimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, in the Mar Muerto Lagoon, Southern Mexico. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 24: 30–34.
30 Rivera-Velázquez, G., L. A. Soto, I. H. Salgado-Ugarte, and E. J. Naranjo. 2008. Growth, mortality and migratory pattern of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei, Crustacea, Penaeidae) in the Carretas-Pereyra coastal lagoon system, Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical 56: 523–533.
31 Wakida-Kusunoki, Armando T., Luis Enrique Amador-del Angel, Patricia Carrillo Alejandro, and Cecilia Quiroga Brahms. 2011. Presence of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Invasions 6: S139–S142. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.031.
32 Perez-Velazquez, Martin, Mayra L. González-Félix, D. A. Davis, Luke A. Roy, and Xuezhi Zhu. 2013. Studies of the Thermal and Haline Influences on Growth and Survival of Litopenaeus vannamei and Litopenaeus setiferus. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 44: 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12028.
33 Varadharajan, D., and N. Pushparajan. 2013. Food and Feeding Habits of Aquaculture Candidate a Potential Crustacean of Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus Vannamei, South East Coast of India. J Aquac Res Development 4: 5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.1000161.
34 Pontes, Cibele Soares, Maria de Fatima Arruda, Alexandre Augusto de Lara Menezes, and Patrícia Pereira de Lima. 2006. Daily activity pattern of the marine shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone 1931) juveniles under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture Research 37: 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01519.x.
35 Panutrakul, S., and W. Senanan. 2021. Abundance of introduced Pacific whiteleg shrimp Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) along the east coast of Thailand. Aquatic Invasions 16: 750–770.
36 Chong-Robles, Jennyfers, Guy Charmantier, Viviane Boulo, Joel Lizárraga-Valdéz, Luis M. Enríquez-Paredes, and Ivone Giffard-Mena. 2014. Osmoregulation pattern and salinity tolerance of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) during post-embryonic development. Aquaculture 422–423: 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.11.034.
37 Senanan, W., S. Panutrakul, P. Barnette, V. Manthachitra, S. Chavanich, A. R. Kapuscinski, N. Tangkrock-Olan, et al. 2010. Ecological risk assessemnt of an alien aquatic species: a case study of Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific whiteleg shrimp) aquaculture in the Bangpakong river, Thailand. In Tropical Deltas and Coastal Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land-Water Interface, ed. Chu T. Hoanh, Brian W. Szuster, Kam Suan-Pheng, Abdelbagi M. Ismail, and Andrew D. Noble, 9:64–79. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. UK: CAB International.
38 Kumlu, Metin, Serhat Türkmen, and Mehmet Kumlu. 2010. Thermal tolerance of Litopenaeus vannamei (Crustacea: Penaeidae) acclimated to four temperatures. Journal of Thermal Biology 35: 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2010.06.009.
39 Ogle, John T., Kathy Beaugez, and Jeffrey M. Lotz. 1992. Effects of Salinity on Survival and Growth of Postlarval Penaeus vannamei. Gulf and Caribbean Research 8: 415–421. https://doi.org/10.18785/grr.0804.07.
40 Martínez-Antonio, E. M., I. S. Racotta, J. C. Ruvalcaba-Márquez, and F. Magallón-Barajas. 2019. Modulation of stress response and productive performance of Litopenaeus vannamei through diet. PeerJ 7: e6850. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6850.
41 Araneda, Marcelo, Eduardo P. Pérez, and Eucario Gasca-Leyva. 2008. White shrimp Penaeus vannamei culture in freshwater at three densities: Condition state based on length and weight. Aquaculture 283: 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.06.030.
42 Su, Yuepeng, Shen Ma, and Cuimei Feng. 2010. Effects of Salinity Fluctuation on the Growth and Energy Budget of Juvenile Litopenaeus vannamei at Different Temperatures. Journal of Crustacean Biology 30: 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1651/09-3269.1.
43 Yano, I., R. A. Kanna, R. N. Oyama, and J. A. Wyban. 1988. Mating behaviour in the penaeid shrimp Penaeus vannamei. Marine Biology 97: 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00391299.
44 Misamore, Michael J., and Craig L. Browdy. 1996. Mating Behavior in the White Shrimps Penaeus setiferus and P. vannamei: A Generalized Model for Mating in Penaeus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 16: 61–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1548931.
45 Kumlu, Metin, Serhat Türkmen, Mehmet Kumlu, and O. Tufan Eroldoğan. 2011. Off-season Maturation and Spawning of the Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in Sub-tropical Conditions. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11.
46 Wright, James. 2016. Seajoy’s ablation-free shrimp answers emerging welfare concern | The Advocate.
47 Seajoy. 2018. Seajoy! - Non Ablation. http://www.seajoy.com/index.php/sustainable/non-ablation. Accessed May 22.
48 Undercurrent News. 2016. Seajoy stops shrimp eyestalk ablation. Undercurrent News.
49 Leung-Trujillo, Joanna K., and A. L. Lawrence. 1985. The effect of eyestalk ablation on spermatophore and sperm quality in Penaeus vannamei. Journal of the World Mariculture Society 16: 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1985.tb00208.x.
50 Taylor, J., L. Vinatea, R. Ozorio, R. Schuweitzer, and E. R. Andreatta. 2004. Minimizing the effects of stress during eyestalk ablation of Litopenaeus vannamei females with topical anesthetic and a coagulating agent. Aquaculture 233: 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.09.034.
51 Colt, J., and J. JUGUENIN. 1992. Shrimp hatchery design: engineering considerations. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science 23: 245–285.
52 Chamberlain, George. 2017. Personal communication.
53 Sturmer, Leslie, Samocha, T, and A. L. Lawrence. 1992. Intensification of penaeid nursery systems. In Marine Shrimp Culture: Principles and Practices. Elsevier.
54 Edwards, R.R.C. 1977. Field experiments on growth and mortality of Penaeus vannamei in a Mexican coastal lagoon complex. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5: 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0302-3524(77)90076-7.
55 Roque, Ana. 2015. Personal communication.
56 Hsiao, Shyh-Min Tom. 2015. Method for guiding aquatic crustaceans by utilizing their biological tendency responding to bright and dark contrast. http://www.google.com/patents/US7000567. Accessed November 12.
57 Balboa, William A., Timothy L. King, and Paul C. Hammerschmidt. 1991. Occurrence of Pacific White Shrimp in Lower Laguna Madre, Texas. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish. and Wildl. Agencies 45: 288–292.
58 Panutrakul, S., W. Senanan, S. Chavanich, N. Tangkrock-Olan, and V. Viyakarn. 2010. Ability of Litopenaeus vannamei to survive and compete with local marine shrimp species in the Bangpakong river, Thailand. In Tropical Deltas and Coastal Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land-Water Interface, ed. Chu T. Hoanh, Brian W. Szuster, Kam Suan-Pheng, Abdelbagi M. Ismail, and Andrew D. Noble, 9:80–92. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. UK: CAB International.
59 Obaldo, Leonard G., and Reiji Masuda. 2006. Effect of Diet Size on Feeding Behavior and Growth of Pacific White Shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 18: 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J028v18n01_07.
60 Gatune, Charles, Ann Vanreusel, Clio Cnudde, Renison Ruwa, Peter Bossier, and Marleen De Troch. 2012. Decomposing mangrove litter supports a microbial biofilm with potential nutritive value to penaeid shrimp post larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 426–427: 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.05.015.
61 Salim, G., A. Indarjo, M. Zein, L. Y. Prakoso, Suhirwan, GS A. Daengs, and Rukisah. 2020. The allometric growth and condition index comparison of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) from fishpond and juata laut waters, Tarakan (Indonesia). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 564: 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/564/1/012009.
62 Luchiari, A. C., A. O. Marques, and F. A. M. Freire. 2012. Effects of substrate colour preference on growth of the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) (Decapoda, Penaeoidea). Crustaceana 85: 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854012X650232.
63 Santos, Daniele Bezerra dos, Cibele Soares Pontes, Fúlvio Aurélio Morais Freire, and Ambrósio Paula Bessa Júnior. 2011. Efeito do tipo de sedimento na eficiência alimentar, crescimento e sobrevivência de Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931). Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences 33: 369–375. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascibiolsci.v33i4.6134.
64 Ritvo, G, T.M Samocha, A.L Lawrence, and W.H Neill. 1998. Growth of Penaeus vannamei on soils from various Texas shrimp farms, under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture 163: 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00225-7.
65 Hirono, Yosuke, and Mark Leslie. 1992. Chapter 38 - Shrimp culture industry in Ecuador. In Marine Shrimp Culture, ed. Arlo W. Fast and L. James Lester, 783–815. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-88606-4.50044-8.
66 McGraw, W. J., D. A. Davis, D. Teichert-Coddington, and D. B. Rouse. 2002. Acclimation of Litopenaeus vannamei Postlarvae to Low Salinity: Influence of Age, Salinity Endpoint, and Rate of Salinity Reduction. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 33: 78–84.
67 Jayasankar, Vidya, Safiah Jasmani, Takeshi Nomura, Setsuo Nohara, Do Thi Thanh Huong, and Marcy N. Wilder. 2009. Low Salinity Rearing of the Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei: Acclimation, Survival and Growth of Postlarvae and Juveniles. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly: JARQ 43: 345–350. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.43.345.
68 Mercier, Laurence, Ilie S. Racotta, Gloria Yepiz‐Plascencia, Adriana Muhlia‐Almazán, Roberto Civera, Marcos F. Quiñones‐Arreola, Mathieu Wille, Patrick Sorgeloos, and Elena Palacios. 2009. Effect of diets containing different levels of highly unsaturated fatty acids on physiological and immune responses in Pacific whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) exposed to handling stress. Aquaculture Research 40: 1849–1863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02291.x.
69 Aparicio-Simón, Benjamin, Manuel Piñón, Radu Racotta, and Ilie S. Racotta. 2010. Neuroendocrine and metabolic responses of Pacific whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei exposed to acute handling stress. Aquaculture 298: 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.10.016.
70 Mercier, Laurence, Elena Palacios, Ángel I. Campa-Córdova, Dariel Tovar-Ramírez, Roberto Hernández-Herrera, and Ilie S. Racotta. 2006. Metabolic and immune responses in Pacific whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei exposed to a repeated handling stress. Aquaculture 258: 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.04.036.
71 Racotta, Ilie S., and Elena Palacios. 1998. Hemolymph Metabolic Variables in Response to Experimental Manipulation Stress and Serotonin Injection in Penaeus vannamei. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 29: 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1998.tb00658.x.
72 Guo, Biao, Fang Wang, Ying Li, and Shuanglin Dong. 2013. Effect of periodic light intensity change on the molting frequency and growth of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 396–399: 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.02.033.
73 Sainz-Hernández, Juan Carlos, Ilie S. Racotta, Silvie Dumas, and Jorge Hernández-López. 2008. Effect of unilateral and bilateral eyestalk ablation in Litopenaeus vannamei male and female on several metabolic and immunologic variables. Aquaculture 283: 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.07.002.
74 Sánchez-Barajas, Maximiliano, Marco Agustín Liñán-Cabello, and Alfredo Mena-Herrera. 2009. Detection of yellow-head disease in intensive freshwater production systems of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture International 17: 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-008-9183-9.
75 Weis, Ben. 2022. The assessment of dry electric stunning as a commercial method for the humane dispatch of farmed White Leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) presented at the HSA International Conference 2022. Session 3: Aquaculture Part Two, June 30, Edinburgh, UK.
76 Birch, Jonathan, Charolotte Burn, Alexandra Schnell, Heather Browning, and Andrew Crump. 2021. Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans. The London School of Economics and Political Science.
77 Compassion in World Farming Food Business. 2021. Tesco & Hilton Seafood – Improving the welfare of whiteleg shrimp (Pennaus vannamei) at harvest. Compassion in World Farming Food Business.
78 SwissShrimp AG | SwissShrimp kurz erklärt. 2024.
79 Albalat, Amaya, Simão Zacarias, Christopher J. Coates, Douglas M. Neil, and Sonia Rey Planellas. 2022. Welfare in Farmed Decapod Crustaceans, With Particular Reference to Penaeus vannamei. Frontiers in Marine Science 9: 886024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.886024.
80 Weineck, Kristin, Andrew J. Ray, Leo J. Fleckenstein, Meagan Medley, Nicole Dzubuk, Elena Piana, and Robin L. Cooper. 2018. Physiological Changes as a Measure of Crustacean Welfare under Different Standardized Stunning Techniques: Cooling and Electroshock. Animals 8: 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8090158.
81 Saraiva, João L. 2017. Personal communication.
82 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.
83 Browdy, Craig, Gloria Seaborn, Heidi Atwood, D. Allen Davis, Robert A. Bullis, Tzachi M. Samocha, Ed Wirth, and John W. Leffler. 2006. Comparison of Pond Production Efficiency, Fatty Acid Profiles, and Contaminants in Litopenaeus vannamei Fed Organic Plant-based and Fish-meal-based Diets. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 37: 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2006.00057.x.
84 Amaya, Elkin A., D. Allen Davis, and David B. Rouse. 2007. Replacement of fish meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) reared under pond conditions. Aquaculture 262: 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.11.015.
85 Samocha, T. 2004. Substitution of fish meal by co-extruded soybean poultry by-product meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 231: 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.08.023.
86 Maia, Caroline Marques. 2023. Personal communication.
87 FAO. 2024. FishStat: Global aquaculture production 1950-2022. www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj: FishStatJ.
Lorem ipsum
Something along the lines of: 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.
Lorem ipsum
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.
Lorem ipsum
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.
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.