homebutton

Whiteleg shrimp

Penaeus vannamei
Penaeus vannamei (Whiteleg shrimp)
enlarge button
Distribution
Distribution map: Penaeus vannamei (Whiteleg shrimp)




Information

Authors: Caroline Marques Maia, João L. Saraiva, Jenny Volstorf
Version: C | 2.0 (2023-09-08)


Reviewer: Jenny Volstorf
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2017-03-09
Version information:
  • Appearance: C
  • Last major update: 2023-09-08

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline, João L. Saraiva, and Jenny Volstorf. 2023. Penaeus vannamei (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-03-09. Version C | 2.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Penaeus vannamei
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Depth range
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Migration
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Reproduction
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Aggregation
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Aggression
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Substrate
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Stress
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Malformations
score-li
score-po
score-ce
Slaughter
score-li
score-po
score-ce


Legend

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)

score-legend
High
score-legend
Medium
score-legend
Low
score-legend
Unclear
score-legend
No findings

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’ 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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: PLANKTONIC 1 2 3 4.
  • FARM: flat, "V" or "U" shaped tanks: 4-100 m³ 5. NAUPLII: buckets: 5 L 6, plastic circular: 50 L or 0.4 m ∅ 7.
  • LAB: does not apply.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds 8. Ponds: 1,000-20,200 m2 9 10 11 12, 40,000-50,000+ m2 13, for nursery in BIOFLOC systems: 110 m3 14, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 2,568 m2 15. Cement tanks: 13,000 L 16.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: ponds: ​1,000 m2 (46 x 20 m) 17, 1,000-20,200 m2 10 11 12, 40,000-50,000+ m2 13, for grow-out in BIOFLOC systems: 1,500 m3 14, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 2,568 m2 15, for growout (concrete): 440 m2 18, extensive conditions: >50,000 m2 19, semi-intensive conditions: 10,000-200,000 m2 19, intensive conditions: 3,000-20,000 m2 19, ultra-intensive conditions: <3,000 m2 19. Tanks: polyethylene: 1 m3 20, cement: 13,000 L 16. Raceways: 33 m2 21. Cages: 1 m3 22.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: minimum 3.7 m ∅ recommended 23. Black fiberglass tanks: 25 m2 24. Tanks for mating: cone: 2 m3, square: 20 m3 6, for maturation/mating: fiberglass circular: 4 m3 or 3 m ∅ 7, for spawning: 140 L 6, fiberglass circular: 500 L or 1m ∅ 7.
  • LAB: does not apply.

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 missing for LARVAE to JUVENILES.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: hatching tanks, buckets 6.
  • LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: flat, "V" or "U" shaped tanks: 4-100 m³ 5.
  • LAB: does not apply.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: shallow lagoons, estuaries, mangroves in native and non-native waters 2 26 27 28 4 29 5 30 31.
  • FARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds 8. Ponds: 1-2 m 10 11 12, average 1.4 m 11, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 1.2 m 15.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS

  • WILD: sheltered, shallow estuaries, lagoons, mangroves in native and non-native waters 2 26 27 28 4 29 5 30 32 31, with highest abundance <1 m (protected areas) 29. Non-native waters: bottom grazers 33.
  • FARM: ponds: 1-2 m 17 10 11 12, average 1.4 m 11, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 1.2 m 15, extensive conditions: 0.4-1 m 19, semi-intensive conditions: 0.7-1.5 m 19, intensive conditions: 1.5-2 m 19. Polyethylene tanks: 0.8 m 20.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: breed offshore in deeper waters 2 4; caught at >10 m 34 26, down to 72 m 4.
  • FARM: usually 0.35-0.40 m 23. Maturation/mating fiberglass circular tanks: 0.5-0.7 m 7.
  • LAB: does not apply.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

AMPHIDROMOUS 26 28 29 30 31, EURYHALINE 28 6 35 32 36.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: PELAGIC offshore 1 2 3 4.
  • FARM: sea- or brackish water in lagoons, mangroves and other costal areas with freshwater input 5. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: migrate inshore, usually to estuaries, lagoons or mangroves to spend JUVENILES stage, both in native and non-native waters 2 26 27 28 4 29 5 30 31 35. 22.9-36.8 °C 30, non-native waters: 26-34.4 °C 37.
  • FARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds 5. 10-14 h PHOTOPERIOD 11, <26 °C is considered low temperature 13, 26-34 °C 12 14 11 6, ideally 26-28 °C, optimum 23-30 °C, tolerate 15-23 or 30-33°C 11, sea- 5 6 or brackish water 5 12 6: 3.7-37 ppt 9 14 11 6 or 5 g/L 16. GAP certification in Vietnam recommends to not use tap water and groundwater to reduce salinity in rearing ponds 15. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: decreasing survival <10 °C and >34 °C, but depends on acclimatisation and cooling or warming rate 38, with better growth at 30 °C than at 16 °C 39. Reduced growth and survival at salinity 6 psu than at 37 psu 40.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS:

  • WILD: inshore, usually in mangroves, lagoons or estuaries 30 33 26, may migrate at 2.5-5 months 29 30 to mature and – once ADULTS – spawn offshore 29 30, similarly in non-native waters 35. 22.9-37 °C 29 30, non-native waters: 21-34.4 °C 37 31, preferred salinity 7-34 psu 35.
  • FARM: 10-23 h PHOTOPERIOD 11 22, <26 °C is considered low temperature 13, 26-34 °C 18 12 14 11 6 22, ideally 26-28 °C, optimum 23-30 °C, tolerate 15-23 or 30-33 °C 11, sea- 5 13 6 or brackish water 5 13 12 6: 2-37 ppt 18 17 14 11 6, 5 g/L 16 or 24.5‰ 22. GAP certification in Vietnam recommends to not use tap water and groundwater to reduce salinity in rearing ponds 15. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: freshwater rearing is possible 41. Decreasing survival <10 °C and >34 °C, but depends on acclimatisation and cooling or warming rate 38, with a better growth at 30 °C than at 20-25 °C 39 and at 28 °C than at 20-24 °C 32 and a higher moulting frequency at 25-30 °C than at 20 °C 42. Reduced growth and survival under a salinity of 6 psu than at 37 psu 40.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: spawn offshore 2 4 29 30, similarly in non-native waters 35.
  • FARM: 12-14 h PHOTOPERIOD 24 7, fiberglass circular tanks for maturation/mating: 26-27 °C 7, fiberglass circular tanks for spawning: 30-31 °C 7. Seawater 5, 30 ppt 6. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS): does not apply.

POST-LARVAE: does not apply.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: courtship: male chases, turns, and grasps female 43 44. No broodcare 43 45 4.
  • FARM: maturity: males at 5.5-9.5 months (but ~11 months were already reported 37), females at 8.5 months 18; sex ratio (wild-caught and farm-reared IND): 1:1 24 7; mating frequency when ablated: 1.8-2.1 matings/months for wild-caught IND and 1.2-1.9 for farm-reared IND, time between matings decreasing with increasing time since ablation 24. Female eyestalk ablation to induce and accelerate maturation 23 24 7 – also in wild-caught IND 24 – male ablation to improve sperm quality 5. Novel techniques allow ablation-free spawning in commercial scale 46 47 48. Natural mating is possible in 2 m3 cone tanks and in 20 m3 square tanks, but more successful in the latter 6.
  • LAB: courtship: male chases, turns, and grasps female, spawns at mating, whereas female spawns 2-5 h later 43 44 45. Faster ovarian maturation in unilaterally ablated females than hormonally injected, thermally manipulated or control females, besides increasing female fecundity, but decreasing hatching rate 45. Higher spermatophore weight and male fecundity in unilaterally ablated males 49. Stressed (to the point of mortality) by eyestalk ablation and serotonin injection 49 50 if not treated with anaesthetic beforehand and coagulating agent afterwards 50.

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 more farm information is missing on density-related stress.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: occur naturally in large numbers 1 2 3 4.
  • FARM: tanks: small 50,000-100,000 IND/m2, large: 10,000-30,000 IND/m2 51.
  • LAB: no data found yet

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: average 0.001-0.302 IND/m2, higher in rainy season than in dry season, with peaks of 3.8-4.9 IND/m2 in April-May 30.
  • FARM: ponds: build schools 52, 50-200 IND/m2 53, 10-120 IND/m2 10 12 11, for nursery in biofloc systems: 350 IND/m2 14, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 39 IND/m2, non-GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 93 IND/m2 15, tendency of better growth at 50-51 than 61 IND/m2 9, stress conditions can arise from chronic water quality problems, high concentrations of ammonia, high stocking densities 13. Cement tanks: 60 IND/m3 16. GAP certification in Vietnam: recommend 40-150 IND/m2 in general 15.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS:

  • WILD: 0.001-4.9 IND/m2 depending on time of year, higher in rainy season than in dry season 54 29 30.
  • FARM: ponds: 10-120 IND/m2 17 10 12 11, for grow-out in biofloc systems: 350 IND/m2 14, GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 39 IND/m2, non-GAP-certified in Vietnam: mean 93 IND/m2 15, extensive conditions: 0.1-1 IND/m2 19, semi-intensive conditions: 3-10 IND/m2 19, intensive conditions: 15-40 IND/m2 19, ultra-intensive conditions: 100-500 IND/m2 19, stress conditions can arise from chronic water quality problems, high concentrations of ammonia, high stocking densities 13. Raceways: better survival and growth at 200 than 400 IND/m2 21, in shared raceway, better growth at 40-80% of the raceway at 100 IND/m2 than 20-60% of the raceway at 600 IND/m2 21. Cement tanks: 60 IND/m3 16. Cages: 15 IND/m3 22. GAP certification in Vietnam: recommend 40-150 IND/m2 in general 15. For aggregation and undeliberate injuries ➝ W3.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: tanks: for maturation: 4-5 IND/m2 23, for maturation/mating: fiberglass circular: 15 IND/m2 7, for spawning: 2-3 IND/m2 51, black fiberglass: 6-8 IND/m2 24.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: increased cannibalism indicates stress 13.
  • LAB: contrasts of stark light directed IND in habitat and decreased cannibalism in newly-invented stacked culture system with very high densities 55.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS:

  • WILD: competition for food and space with other species in native and non-native waters 56 57 31.
  • FARM: undeliberate carapace damage from contact with rostrums during food competition under high density conditions 58.
  • LAB: undeliberate carapace damage from contact with rostrums during food competition under high density conditions 58. Food competition: the larger the particle size, the more IND attacked to obstruct others from feeding 59. Food competition and cannibalism for single food item in pairs of IND 57. Contrasts of stark light directed IND in habitat and decreased cannibalism in newly-invented stacked culture system with very high densities 55.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ W2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: PELAGIC 1 2 3 4.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: BENTHIC 28, benefit from natural nutrients in the substrate 60 25. Muddy substrate, rich in organic matter 30 61, in which IND immerse themselves 61.
  • FARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds 8. Spend most of the time in the pond bottom 13. Split bamboo poles (4 cm width) in vertical hanging position submerged at 0.9 m as periphyton substrate improved growth 16. Turbidity: Secchi disc 0.1-0.2 m 12, Secchi disc of 0.3-0.5 m is considered an indicator of good water maturation 13. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: wild-caught IND burrowed in fine sand 26.

JUVENILES and SUB-ADULTS:

  • WILD: bottom grazers 30 33, burrowing occasionally 26. Muddy substrate 29 30, rich in organic matter 30, in which IND immerse themselves 61. Non-native waters: muddy substrate 31.
  • FARM: reared mostly in earthen ponds xcept in ultra-intensive conditions 5. Spend most of the time in the pond bottom 13. Ponds: 25-cm deep layer of sandy-loam soil 17. Split bamboo poles (4 cm width) in vertical hanging position submerged at 0.9 m as periphyton substrate improved growth 16. Turbidity: Secchi disc 0.1-0.2 m 12, Secchi disck of 0.3-0.5 m is considered an indicator of good water maturation 13. Polyethylene tanks: 0.1 m sediment layer on artificial substrate from shrimp ponds (aquamats, geotextile fabric, or mosquito nets), promoting periphyton, better water quality, growth 20. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
  • LAB: wild-caught IND burrowed in fine sand 26. Tendency of preference for yellow or red sand and walls, with a tendency for a better growth, avoiding blue and green sand and walls 62. Circular fiberglass tanks: polyethylene screens with mosquito net placed vertically, with increased growth and survival, besides reduced stress (IND did not settle on smooth tank walls but on rough net surface) 25. Polyethylene boxes: mix of a) silt, clay, and fine or very fine sand or b) fine and very fine sand 63. Glass aquaria: exploration of sand substrate 34.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no nest building 43 4 44 45, but depend on substrate for grazing 33 and burrowing 26 64.
  • FARM: maturation tanks may have sand substrate 51, spawning tanks have no reports of substrate 51 65.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: stressed (to the point of mortality) by abrupt changes in salinity 39 66 67. Direct transfer from 32 to 45 ppt salinity increased hyperactivity and cannibalism 36.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: ponds: stress conditions can arise from extreme temperatures during transport or handling or from poor diet 13. GAP certification in Vietnam recommends transportation time ≤8 h 15. Opaque or whitish colour, erratic swimming, empty gut or increased cannibalism indicate stress 13. Stressed (to the point of mortality) by desalination when reared in oceanic conditions 6. For stress and stocking density ➝ W4.
  • LAB: stressed (to the point of mortality) by abrupt changes in salinity 39 66 67. Direct transfer from 32 to 45 ppt salinity increased hyperactivity and cannibalism 36. Stressed by hypoxia and being prodded until exhaustion 40. For stress and salinity in general, temperature ➝ W5, for stress and cannibalism ➝ W3.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: ponds: stress conditions can arise from extreme temperatures during transport or handling or from poor diet Manual. For stress and stocking density ➝ W4.
  • LAB: stressed by confinement, hypoxia, chasing, and being prodded until exhaustion 68 69 40, also chronically 70 68, including by shaking the environment 70. Stressed by repeated sampling 71. Lower survival after repeated handling stress in IND fed a diet low compared to high in highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) 68. Lowest moulting frequency and wet gain under periodic abrupt changing light intensity of 6,000 lux to 60 lux; lower wet gain also under constant lighting, but higher under periodic abrupt changing light intensity of 1,500 lux to 60 lux 72. High mortality in unilaterally and even higher in bilaterally ablated IND 73. For stress and salinity, temperature ➝ W5, for stress and reproduction ➝ W6, for stress and substrate ➝ W7.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: probably stressed by handling 45. For stress and reproduction ➝ W6.

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.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS):

  • WILD: no data found yet. 
  • FARM: NAUPLII: malformations in mean 10-12% (brackish water), 10.5% (oceanic water) 6.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

POST-LARVAE:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: it is recommended to not accept >5% of deformities 13.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no deformities found in intense farming 74. Further research needed on frequency of malformations under other culture conditions.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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, as not finding anything about stunning/slaughter indicates that they probably die of asphyxia. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as electrical stunning potentially induces unconsciousness fast and kills while still unconscious, but needs to be verified for P. vannamei and the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence exclusively from related species.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE (NAUPLII, PROTOZOEA, MYSIS): does not apply.

POST-LARVAE: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: common slaughter method: no data found yet. High-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.
  • LAB: for the related Carcinus maenas 75 76, Nephrops norvegicus 75, Homarus americanus, Astacus leptodactylus 76, Cancer pagurus 77 76, Homarus gammarus 77, “crabs and lobsters” 78, electrical stunning. In the related Cancer pagurus, fastest loss of consciousness in electrical stunning over (in ascending order) bathing in 20% KCL solution, heated water, CO2, freezing, chilling 79. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to P. vannamei as well.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

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 80, 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 57.
  • FARM: fish meal and fish oil may be mostly* replaced by sustainable sources 82 83 67 84. 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 [personal communication Maia 2023]. 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%

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
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 81
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, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
MYSIS = third larval stage, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
NAUPLII = first larval stage after hatching, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
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; for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PROTOZOEA = second larval stage, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
SUB-ADULTS = juveniles transforming to fully mature adults, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Kitani, Hiroshi. 1986. Larval Development of the White Shrimp Penaeus vannamei BOONE Reared in the Laboratory and the Statistical Observation of its Naupliar Stages. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 52: 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.2331/suisan.52.1131.
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 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.
56 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.
57 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.
58 Roque, Ana. 2015. Personal communication.
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 Neil, Douglas. 2010. The effect of the CrustastunTM on nerve activity in crabs and lobsters. Scientific Report to Studham Technologies Ltd. UK: University of Glasgow.
76 Bickmeyer, Ulf, and Torsten Fregin. 2015. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur tiergerechten Betäubung oder Tötung von  Krustentieren. Bremerhaven: Alfred Wegener Institut, Helmholtz Zentrum für  Polar- und Meeresforschung.
77 Neil, Douglas, and John Thompson. 2012. The Stress Induced by the CrustastunTM Process in Two Commercially Important Decapod Crustaceans: The Edible Brown Cancer Pagurus and the European Lobster Homarus Gammarus. Project report. UK: University of Glasgow.
78 Sparrey, Julian. 2005. Testing of Crustastun single crab and lobster stunner. Unpublished research report. UK.
79 Roth, B, and S Øines. 2010. Stunning and killing of edible crabs (Cancer pagurus). Animal Welfare 19: 287–294.
80 Teletchea, Fabrice. 2015. Domestication of Marine Fish Species: Update and Perspectives. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3: 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3041227.
81 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.
82 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.
83 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.
84 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.
contents
show all details
«