Information
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-07-20)
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
Lutjanus erythropterus is native to (and reared in) the Indo-Pacific region from northern Australia to the Gulf of Oman and to the south of Japan. The species of the family Lutjanidae (snappers) inhabits reefs at depths of 1-300 m. It is mainly caught by commercial, artisanal, and recreational fishery, but despite its slow growth, cage culture is performed. For L. erythropterus to increase its FishEthoScore, more research is needed on the biology and on natural conditions of home range, depth, migration, reproduction, aggregation, aggression, substrate, as well as on farming conditions, stress, and stunning.
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 low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.3 Migration
Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal and 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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a 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 medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.8 Stress
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).
What is the probability of the species not being stressed?
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 and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.10 Slaughter
The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.
What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?
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 13, 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 7. FARM: most farms in Southeast Asia feed trash fish 2 - no data found yet on replacement studies.
Glossary
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 13
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
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 De Silva, Sena S., and Michael J. Phillips. 2007. A review of cage aquaculture: Asia (excluding China). In Cage aquaculture - Regional reviews and global overview, ed. M. Halwart, D. Soto, and J. R. Arthur, 18–48. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 498. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
3 Jones, Clive M., and Kurt Derbyshire. 1988. Sampling the demersal fauna from a commercial penaeid prawn fishery off the central Queensland coast. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 25: 403–415.
4 Williams, David McBeath, and Garry R. Russ. 1994. Review of data on fishes of commercial and recreational fishing interest in the Great Barrier Reef Vol. 1. Report. Townsville, Queensland: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
5 Newman, Stephen J., and David McB Williams. 1996. Variation in reef associated assemblages of the Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae at different distances offshore in the central Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005214.
6 Badrudin, Badrudin, and Aisyah Aisyah. 2009. Separate stocks of red snapper exploitation and management in the Indonesian sector of the Arafura Sea. Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal 15: 81–88. https://doi.org/10.15578/ifrj.15.1.2009.81-88.
7 Hajisamae, Sukree. 2009. Trophic ecology of bottom fishes assemblage along coastal areas of Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 82: 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2009.02.010.
8 Sumpton, W. D., I. W. Brown, D. G. Mayer, M. F. McLennan, A. Mapleston, A. R. Butcher, D. J. Welch, J. M. Kirkwood, B. Sawynok, and G. A. Begg. 2010. Assessing the effects of line capture and barotrauma relief procedures on post-release survival of key tropical reef fish species in Australia using recreational tagging clubs. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17: 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00722.x.
9 Murugan, A., K. Vinod, K. R. Saravanan, T. Anbalagan, R. Saravanan, S. V. Sanaye, S. K. Mojjada, S. Rajagopal, and T. Balasubramanian. 2014. Diversity, occurrence and socio-economic aspects of snappers and job fish (Family: Lutjanidae) fisheries from Gulf of Mannar region, south-east coast of India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43: 618–633.
10 Fry, Gary, David A. Milton, Tonya Van Der Velde, Ilona Stobutzki, Retno Andamari, Badrudin, and Bambang Sumiono. 2009. Reproductive dynamics and nursery habitat preferences of two commercially important Indo-Pacific red snappers Lutjanus erythropterus and L. malabaricus. Fisheries Science 75: 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-008-0034-4.
11 Newman, Stephen J, Michael Cappo, and David McB Williams. 2000. Age, growth, mortality rates and corresponding yield estimates using otoliths of the tropical red snappers, Lutjanus erythropterus, L. malabaricus and L. sebae, from the central Great Barrier Reef. Fisheries Research 48: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(00)00115-6.
12 Cheng, Dachuan, Md Mahbubul Hassan, Zhenhua Ma, Qibin Yang, and Jianguang Qin. 2018. Skeletal Ontogeny and Anomalies in Larval and Juvenile Crimson Snapper, Lutjanus erythropterus Bloch, 1790. Pakistan J. Zool. 50: 799–807. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.3.799.807.
13 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.
