Information
Version: B | 1.2 (2022-07-20)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
WelfareScore | farm
Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.
- Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
- Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
- Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)
General remarks
Lota lota is the only gadiform (cod-like) freshwater fish. L. lota populations are difficult to study due to their deep habitats and reproduction under ice. There is limited information about this species in the wild and under farming conditions. As L. lota lacks popularity in commercial fishing, many regions do not even consider management plans. Aquaculture could represent a solution to restore L. lota wild populations. In the recent years, it has become one of the promising candidates for diversification of freshwater aquaculture. Further research is needed on both natural behaviour and physiological effects of farming practices in order to provide recommendations for improving fish welfare.
1 Home range
Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?
It is unclear for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.3 Migration
Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.4 Reproduction
A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.
What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of these circumstances?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.6 Aggression
There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.
What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.7 Substrate
Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).
What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.8 Stress
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).
What is the probability of the species not being stressed?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.9 Malformations
Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.
What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.10 Slaughter
The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.
What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.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 3 24, level 5 being fully domesticated.
Side note: Forage fish in the feed
450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.
To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?
All age classes: WILD: carnivorous 11 25. FARM: currently, there are no specific commercial feeds 26. No data found yet on replacement of fish meal and fish oil.
Side note: Commercial relevance
How much is this species farmed annually?
Glossary
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 24
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Fischer, Philipp, and Uta Öhl. 2005. Effects of water-level fluctuations on the littoral benthic fish community in lakes: a mesocosm experiment. Behavioral Ecology 16: 741–746. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari047.
3 Wocher, Hendrik, Alexander Harsányi, and Frieder J. Schwarz. 2011. Husbandry conditions in burbot (Lota lota L.): Impact of shelter availability and stocking density on growth and behaviour. Aquaculture 315: 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.051.
4 Lahnsteiner, F., M. Kletzl, and T. Weismann. 2012. The effect of temperature on embryonic and yolk-sac larval development in the burbot Lota lota. Journal of Fish Biology 81: 977–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03344.x.
5 Żarski, D., D. Kucharczyk, W. Sasinowski, K. Targońska, and A. Mamcarz. 2010. The Influence of Temperature on Successful Reproductions of Burbot, Lota Lota (L.) Under Hatchery Conditions. POLISH JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCES 25: 93–105. https://doi.org/DOI 10.2478/v10020-010-0007-9.
6 Probst, W. N., and R. Eckmann. 2009. The influence of light on the diel vertical migration of young-of-the-year burbot Lota lota in Lake Constance. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02120.x.
7 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
8 Cohen, D.M., T. lnada, T. lwamoto, and N. Scialabba. 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. Vol. 10. FAO Fisheries Synopsis 125. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
9 Bergersen, E. P., M. F. Cook, and R. J. Baldes. 1993. Winter movements of burbot (Lota lota) during an extreme drawdown in Bull Lake, Wyoming, USA. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2: 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.1993.tb00094.x.
10 Carl, L. M. 1995. Sonic Tracking of Burbot in Lake Opeongo, Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124<0077:STOBIL>2.3.CO;2.
11 FAO. 2017. FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture - Species Fact Sheets - Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758). World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fao.org.
12 Breeser, Steven W., F. David Stearns, Michael W. Smith, Robin L. West, and James B. Reynolds. 1988. Observations of Movements and Habitat Preferences of Burbot in an Alaskan Glacial River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1988)117<0506:OOMAHP>2.3.CO;2.
13 Paragamian, Vaughn L., and Virginia D. Wakkinen. 2008. Seasonal Movement of Burbot in Relation to Temperature and Discharge in the Kootenai River, Idaho, USA and British Columbia, Canada. American Fisheries Society Symposium 59: 55–77.
14 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2017. Lota lota summary page. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
15 Kucharczyk, D., A. Mamcarz, R. Kujawa, I. Babiak, J. Glogowski, B. Sarosiek, R. Kowalski, A. Skrzypczak, K. Targonska-Dietrich, and R. Chwaluczyk. 2004. Burbot (Lota lota L.) reproduction in captivity: Comparison of different methods. In . Nancy: Filière Lorraine d’Aquaculture Continentale.
16 Kucharczyk, D., D. Żarski, R. Kujawa, R. Kowalski, B. Cejko, J. Glogowski, and K. Targońska. 2011. Artificial reproduction of burbot (Lota lota L.) under controlled conditions. In . PÍSEK, CZECH REPUBLIC.
17 Neufeld, M. D., C. A. Davis, K. D. Cain, N. R. Jensen, S. C. Ireland, and C. Lewandowski. 2011. Evaluation of methods for the collection and fertilization of burbot eggs from a wild stock for conservation aquaculture operations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27: 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01837.x.
18 Fischer, Philipp. 2000. Test of Competitive Interactions for Space Between Two Benthic Fish Species, Burbot Lota lota, and Stone Loach Barbatula barbatula. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58: 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007631107521.
19 Fischer, Philipp. 2000. An experimental test of metabolic and behavioural responses of benthic fish species to different types of substrate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 2336–2344. https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-211.
20 Slavík, Ondřej, Luděk Bartoš, and Daniel Mattas. 2005. Does Stream Morphology Predict the Home Range Size in Burbot? Environmental Biology of Fishes 74: 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-005-3998-2.
21 Eick, D. 2012. Habitat preferences of the burbot (Lota lota) from the River Elbe: an experimental approach. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 29: 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12110.
22 Vanheule, Diederik, Nancy Nevejan, Koen Chiers, W. Meeus, A. S. Harzevili, Wim Van Den Broeck, D. De Charleroy, and Annemie Decostere. 2012. Hydrocephalus in burbot (Lota lota L.) larvae. BULLETIN OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF FISH PATHOLOGISTS 32: 87–93.
23 Rekecki, Anamaria, Wouter Meeus, Koen Chiers, Jurgen Adriaen, Filip Boyen, Annelies Declercq, Wim Van den Broeck, and Annemie Decostere. 2016. Swimbladder hyperinflation in burbot Lota lota L. larvae. Aquaculture Research 47: 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12499.
24 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
25 Vanheule, D. 2012. Rearing and weaning of burbot, investigation of a specific head deformity and histological development of the digestive tract. Master of Science of Aquaculture, Belgium: Ghent University.
26 Adriaen, J., W. Meeus, T. Abeel, A. Sannen, N. Nevejan, and S. Aerts. 2012. Growth performance and body composition of burbot Lota lota fed different dients with varying levels of crude protein and crude lipid. In .
