homebutton

Largemouth bass

Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass)
enlarge button
Distribution
no distribution map available
IUCN Red List status  
least concern



Information

Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: C | 1.0 (2024-04-18)


Reviewer: Jenny Volstorf
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2024-03-27
Version information:
  • Appearance: C

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2024. Micropterus salmoides (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2024-03-27. Version C | 1.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Micropterus salmoides
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

Micropterus salmoides is a subtropical freshwater fish naturally inhabiting shallow vegetated waters of lakes, ponds, swamps, backwaters, pools of creeks, and small to large rivers in North America. Its distribution comprises St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, Mississippi River basins, and Atlantic and Gulf drainages. In aquaculture, besides being considered an excellent food species, it has been introduced widely as a game fish. Several countries report adverse ecological impact after its introduction. Despite that, it is considered a very promising and valuable freshwater species for consumption, being one of the most economically important aquaculture species in China. Pond culture remains as the dominant production method for M. salmoides, mainly based on monoculture under a high density, high feeding volume, and high water exchange rate. This species has some characteristics considered as advantages for aquaculture, such as excellent flesh quality, no intermuscular bones, rapid growth performance, short culture cycle, and strong adaptability. Despite that, there is still a lack of information considering malformation rates and slaughtering procedures on farms. Thus, further studies are needed to better assess and to improve the welfare of this species.

Note: Due to reaching maturity after the typical age and weight at slaughter, there is no age class "Adults" under FARM in the profile. For information from the wild, the age class “Juveniles” may also refer to ADULTS and vice versa, as the literature does not always specify.

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 farming conditions, as cages, raceways, tanks, containers, and some ponds do not cover – in fact not even overlap with – the whole range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in some age classes. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other ponds at least overlap with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information is missing in LARVAE, FRY, and SPAWNERS.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: circular tanks: 632 L (1.2 m ∅) 1; cylindrical fibreglass indoor tanks: 1,500 L 2. LARVAE: ponds 2.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: 1,800-20,700 m2 with 1-2 core areas of 100-16,400 m2, some IND with successive home ranges 3.
  • FARM: ponds: 400 m2 4 5 6 7 8 (~430,000 L) 4, 1,349 m2 9; earthen ponds: 3,000-10,000 m2 10; split-pond systems: 80 m2 per section 8; land-based ponds: 52.8 m2 (8.2 m ∅) 11. Cages: 40-75 m3 12-10, 1.5 m2 (1.5 x 1 m) 13. Raceways: 21,200 L 4; in-pond raceways: 110 m2 (22 x 5 m) 14 15 16​​​. Tanks (circular): 1,000 L 17, 600 or 1.500 L 18. Land-based containers: 14.6 m2 (6.1 x 2.4 m) 19. RAS with bioflocs: 1,000 L circular blue tanks 17. Rice-fish systems: 176 m2 20.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: 1,800-20,700 m2, with 1-2 core areas of 100-16,400 m2, some IND with successive home ranges 3. 5,500-491,800 m2 21 22 with core areas of 3,100-104,500 m2 21. Range 102,000-5,844,000 m2 (mean 1,680,000 m2) with core areas of 16,000-942,000 m2 (mean 260,000 m2) 23. Increasing home ranges with decreasing number of coarse woody habitats 22.
  • FARM: does not apply.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: ponds: 500 m2 2, 4,000 m2 24; concrete ponds: 48 m2 (6 x 8 m) or 100 m2 (5 x 20 m) 24. Tanks: 1,000 L (0.9 m ∅) 25.
  • 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 cages, raceways, containers, and ponds do not cover the whole range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in some age classes. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the mentioned systems at least overlap with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further farm information is needed for eggs, LARVAE, and FRY.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: nests: 0.2-1.1 m 26.
  • FARM: placed in concrete ponds (water depth 0.4-0.6 m) for hatching 10.
  • LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: nests: 0.2-1.1 m 26. FRY: 3-3.4 m (within 0.6 m of the bottom) during the day, closer to shore at 2.1 m during transitions between day and night, in water 0.3-0.9 m at night 27.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 28, 0-6 m 29-28, in shallow nearshore water at night 30. Found in lakes (max 3-7 m 31) and water bodies (mean 0.9-2.1 m 32) with unclear depth range use. Non-native waters: prefer average 1.8-2.2 m 33.
  • FARM: ponds: 1.5 m 6 7; earthen ponds: 1.5-3.5 m 10; land-based ponds: 1.4 m 11. Cages: 1.2 m 13. In-pond raceways: 2 m 14 15 16. Land-based containers: 1.4 m 19. Rice-fish systems: 0.8 m 20. Tanks: used the space at the surface more often 18.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 28, 0-6 m 29-28, usually inhabiting 2.8 m 23, preference range: 1-5 m 34. Found in water bodies of mean 0.9-4.5 m 32 35 – preferring deeper waters of the range in autumn and winter 21 35. Usually 0-3 m – found offshore in deeper water during the day, probably for resting, and shallower shoreline during dusk and night, probably for foraging 21 36. Prefer 2-3 m during winter 36, prefer vegetated overwintering habitats 1-3 m 34. Increasing depth use with decreasing number of coarse woody habitats 22. Never found in waters >13 m 23. Non-native waters: prefer average 1.8-2.2 m 33.
  • FARM: does not apply.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: male builds the nest in shallow waters 26 28, littoral zones 37, 0.2-1.1 m 26 – shallower when coarse woody habitat is available and deeper to incorporate larger pieces of wood if necessary 37.
  • FARM: ponds: 1-1.8 m 2 24; earthen ponds: nests are put directly on substrate or on bamboo at 0.4 m 10; concrete ponds: 1.2 m 24.
  • 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 farming conditions, as the species undertakes more or less 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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, a) as the space range in captivity overlaps with the migration distance, although we cannot be sure in some age classes or b) given the resident strain respectively, which needs to be verified for SPAWNERS. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed on specific migration distances in the wild.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Some POTAMODROMOUS 31 32 35 36, others resident 32.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: some IND more resident, others moved into and out of backwaters and rivers, mostly relatively short distances 32. In lake, migrated from large deep basin in winter to small shallow basin probably in spring 31. Site fidelity 38-30.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: some IND more resident, others moved into and out of backwaters and rivers 32. In autumn, migrated from backwaters to deeper shoreline 34, mostly relatively short distances 32. In lake, migrated from large deep basin in winter to small shallow basin probably in spring 31. Site fidelity 34 36: in river, homing 0.8-16 km to overwintering areas at <10 °C – with or without no movement between different overwintering areas – and back to backwaters in spring 34, in lakes, homing to overwintering areas and to spawning sites in spring 36, homing to summer areas 36.
  • FARM: does not apply.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: after winter, moved 1.6-64 km out of wintering areas for spawning when temperatures ≥8 °C 26.
  • FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.
  • 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 (PHOTOPERIOD, temperature, hormonal manipulation). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as natural breeding is possible and verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as further research is needed.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: mature at ~5 years 39-28. Spawn in spring and summer 40 28, April-July 41-42, or once 15°C 28 (common spawning temperature: 20 °C 40). Female may spawn with several males on different nests 28. Male guards 43-28 44 and fans the eggs for ~29 days 43-28, guards the nest 26 37 and FRY 27.
  • FARM: spawn at 1 year 24 25. Natural spawning in ponds during spring at 19 °C 2 is possible. Temperature 24 or temperature-PHOTOPERIOD and hormonal manipulation to induce off-season spawning 25 that goes beyond shifting of natural cycle. Sexing based on observation of secondary sexual characteristics is possible 2.
  • LAB: sex ratio: 2:3, 3:2-4 males:females 40. Temperature and PHOTOPERIOD adjustment to induce off-season spawning 40 which we do not consider manipulation. Male guarded eggs 40.

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 containers, raceways, tanks, and some cages and ponds go beyond (or below) the smallest density in the wild. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as densities in other ponds cover the density range in the wild (given JUVENILES ponds are applied to SPAWNERS). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as our transformations into IND/L (to be able to compare with the wild) are only approximations and as further research is needed, especially in the wild.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: spherical school (~1 m ∅), with aggregation more compact at night than during the day 27.
  • FARM: ponds: school directly after hatching, 1.8-15.2 IND/m2 10; circular tanks: 6.3 IND/L 1; cylindrical fibreglass indoor tanks: 30-50 IND/L 2.
  • LAB: no data found yet

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: live in groups 14 19, mean 0.005-0.03 IND/L 42, with aggregations of 2-8 IND, which are more frequent during the day and more stable involving fewer IND in winter 31.
  • FARM: ponds: 0.6-3.8 IND/m2 6 7 16, 0.3-0.5 IND/m2 10 (ca 0.0006-0.004 IND/L 45), in young FINGERLINGS, tendency of decreasing growth with increasing density 1.7-6.7 IND/m2, in older FINGERLINGS, higher growth at 0.2 than 0.7 IND/m2 (incl. 0.01 IND/m2 Ctenopharyngodon idella) 5; higher growth at 0.8 IND/m2 in traditional ponds than 1.3 IND/m2 in intensively aerated or split-pond systems, probably due to stress by confinement or overcrowding in split-pond system 8. Land-based ponds: higher growth at 60-70 and 100 IND/m2 than 80-90 IND/m2 11 (ca 0.06-0.1 IND/L 45). Land-based containers: higher growth at 0.05 IND/L than 0.08 or 0.1 IND/L 19. In-pond raceways: higher growth and survival at 7.2 IND/L than 18.6 and 28.6 IND/L 16, higher growth and survival at 0.05, 0.09, 0.1 IND/L than 0.11 and 0.14 IND/L 15 14, stressed at 0.09 14 and 0.14 IND/L 14 15. Cages: 0.5 IND/L at 4-5 cm TOTAL LENGTH or 0.1-0.15 IND/L at 12 cm TOTAL LENGTH 10, 0.007 IND/L 13. Ponds and raceways: 28.7-799.5 IND/L 4. Tanks: no clear growth tendency between 23, 35, 46 kg/m3, no growth difference in monoculture or 50:50 biculture with Sander lucioperca at density of 1.2 IND/L 18. Rice-fish systems: higher growth and survival at 0.04 kg/m3 than 0.08 or 0.12 kg/m3 20, stressed at 0.12 kg/m3 20.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: live in groups 14 19, mean 0.005-0.03 IND/L, 0.005-0.02 IND/m2 22 42, with aggregations of 2-8 IND, which are more frequent during the day and more stable involving fewer IND in winter 31. Population more spatially distributed in spring and summer and more aggregated in winter, then forming schools 36.
  • FARM: does not apply.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: <0.0002 IND/m2 46-26.
  • FARM: ponds: 20 couples/500 m2 pond 2 (0.08 IND/m2), 250-300 pairs/667 m2 pond (0.7-0.9 IND/m2) 10. Tanks: 0.03 IND/L in pre-spawning tanks and 0.01 IND/L (5 males and 5 females/tank) for spawning ​25.
  • 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 the species is aggressive – even cannibalistic – in almost all age classes. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as ways to reduce (but not avoid) cannibalism (size homogeneity) are verified for the farming context, whereas other ways come with caveats: providing live prey is welfare-reducing for the prey species. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: cannibalistic, which may be minimised by a large quantity of live food and periodical size-grading 2. Necessary to size grade to prevent cannibalism 10.
  • LAB: (wild-caught) FRY: cannibalistic 44.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: sometimes cannibalistic 48 28. Native and non-native waters: cannibalistic when almost no other prey fish is available 42 49.
  • FARM: improper densities speculated to cause cannibalism 14. Ponds: cannibalism suggested to explain undetected mortality 8. Tanks: no cannibalism 18.
  • LAB (wild-caught IND): cannibalistic 44. Aggressive during the establishment of dominance hierarchies in groups of 2-8 IND, more frequently at 0.1-0.2 than 0.3-0.4 IND/L 50.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: sometimes cannibalistic 28. Native and non-native waters: cannibalistic when almost no other prey fish is available 42 49.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: male becomes aggressive and territorial during spawning season 28.
  • FARM: earthen ponds: nests are placed all over pond to avoid predation of eggs by ADULTS 10.
  • 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 cages, raceways, tanks, containers, and some ponds are devoid of it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions given a) hatching substrate for eggs and b) natural reproduction with spawning substrate in ponds for SPAWNERS; earthen ponds for LARVAE to JUVENILES which are not replaced by concrete bottom exist, but enrichment with aquatic vegetation or woody debris has 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: most nests adjacent to aquatic vegetation 26, on muddy bottoms 28, but also over rock and gravel 26.
  • FARM: adhesive 2. Ponds: artificial nests made of palm fibre or of cylindrical plastic drums split in two parts filled with stones 2 24. Tanks: artificial nests made of palm fibre sheet or round basin with gravel 25.
  • LAB: nylon-mat or nylon mesh covered with gravel as spawning substrate 40.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: most nests adjacent to aquatic vegetation 26, on muddy bottoms 28, but also over rock and gravel 26. FRY: loose rock and gravel with inundated branches and twigs of Salix sp. 27, inactive school around the inundated branches and twigs of Salix sp. at night 27.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: usually found over mud or sand 3 51-28, preferring clear water 28. Found in waters with sparse or abundant macrophyte community 48 and large woody debris 42, but also in lakes with no macrophytes 30. Found associated with vegetation and flooded terrestrial habitat 32. Home ranges including weed beds bounded by unvegetated sandy areas, open water, or both 3, found in boundary areas between weed beds and sand/open water 3. Non-native waters: preference for edges of vegetated beds 33 – smaller IND in vegetated areas, larger IND in open waters 33; artificial ponds: rarely submerged or floating-leaved macrophytes 49.
  • FARM: stressed by and lower growth in RAS with bioflocs (cloudy-greenish brown turbid water) compared to clear water RAS 17. ​​​For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: usually found over mud or sand 51-28 – preferring sandbanks during summer 36. Prefer clear water 28, large woody debris 21 22 42, aquatic vegetation 34 21 32 36, flooded terrestrial habitat 32. Home ranges including weed beds bounded by unvegetated sandy areas, open water, or both 3, found over sand and in boundary areas between weed beds and sand/open water 3. Select overwintering areas with abundant aquatic macrophytes 34. Secchi disk: 2-4 m 21, >5 m 22. Non-native waters: preference for edges of vegetated beds 33 – smaller IND in vegetated areas, larger IND in open waters 33; artificial ponds: rarely submerged or floating-leaved macrophytes 49.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: most nests adjacent to aquatic vegetation 26. Male builds nests on muddy bottoms 28, but also over rock and gravel 26. Prefer to nest near coarse woody habitat to use larger pieces of wood when available, otherwise establish nests on or under smaller pieces of wood 37.
  • FARM: ponds: artificial nests made of palm fibre or of cylindrical plastic drums split in two parts filled with stones 2 24, nests of palm leaves are put directly on substrate or on bamboo at 0.4 m depth 10. Tanks: preferred option "artificial nests of palm fibre sheet" over option "round basin with gravel" 25. For details of holding systems ➝ F1 and F2.
  • LAB: ➝ Eggs.

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 (water quality, confinement, crowding, density, transport). It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some ways to reduce (but not avoid) stress are verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed for most age classes.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

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

LARVAE and FRY:

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

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: stressed (to the point of mortality) by abrupt temperature change 4. Stressed by crowding followed by 30-33 h transport at oxygen ≥7 mg/L and density 163-196 g/L – less so at 81-91 g/L and even more so if not permitted to recover completely before a second stress like thermal shock 52. 95% survival after 80 h transport when a) gradually adjusted to 10 °C water, b) transferred to plastic foam boxes at 1:1 IND:water ratio, c) maintained water parameters during transport (5-10 °C, sufficient oxygen, ≥1 water exchange) 10. Stressed by netting confinement for ≤48 h and by poor water quality, with an aggravated response by combining these stressors 4. For stress and a) aggregation ➝ F3, b) substrate (turbidity) ➝ F4.
  • LAB: lower growth because of sound scapes of simulated in-pond raceway systems 53 and lower growth and swimming cohesion because of sound scapes of simulated RAS 54 53. Lower resistance (higher mortality) due to hypoxia when exposed to legal aquaculture dose of sulfamethoxazole antibiotic in the feed as growth promoter and preventive medicine of some diseases 55. Stressed by handling and 1 h 10 min truck transportation at low density, which may be mitigated by 5-9 mg/L clove oil anaesthetic in the 50 L transport tanks 9. Stressed by simulated 4 h truck transport, which may be minimised by dried ginger extract (20 μg/L) or 1,8-cineole (30 μg/L) 56.

ADULTS:

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

SPAWNERS:

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

9  Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, given we mainly found data from lab studies. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as further research is needed on malformation rates in farms.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

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

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: FRY: malformations in <5% after out-of-season spawning 25.
  • LAB: FRY: mainly an abnormal wavy body and unbalanced swimming behavior in ca 7-8%, resulting in lower resistance to and higher mortality rates caused by diseases 57.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: higher malformation rate (in ~20-27%, mainly spinal curvature) when exposed to legal aquaculture dose of sulfamethoxazole antibiotic in the feed as growth promoter and preventive medicine of some diseases 55.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: does not apply.
  • 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 from asphyxia or through processing. It is unclear for high-standard farming conditions, as we did not find hints on how to improve the situation (stunning protocols in related species or in laboratory studies). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: minimal slaughter method: sold alive in ethnic Asian markets 58-6, thus probably asphyxia or through processing. High-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

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

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 2 59, 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: native and non-native waters: carnivorous 27 48 22 33 49 14 19 28.
  • FARM: fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources, but requiring a considerable increase in fish oil 13. Fish meal may be mostly* replaced by a mix of sustainable sources and non-forage fishery components 7.
  • LAB: fish meal may be mostly* replaced by sustainable sources, but requiring a considerable increase in fish oil 60. Fish meal and fish oil may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 61.

*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 59
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FINGERLINGS = early juveniles with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a human finger
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
RAS = Recirculating Aquaculture System - almost completely closed system using filters to clean and recirculate water with the aim of reducing water input and with the advantage of enabling close control of environmental parameters to maintain high water quality
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
TOTAL LENGTH = from snout to tip of caudal fin as compared to fork length (which measures from snout to fork of caudal fin) or standard length (from head to base of tail fin) or body length (from the base of the eye notch to the posterior end of the telson) 47
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Wickstrom, G. A., and R. L. Applegate. 1989. Growth and Food Selection of Intensively Cultured Largemouth Bass Fry. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 51: 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1989)051<0079:GAFSOI>2.3.CO;2.
2 Roncarati, A., R. Vicenzi, P. Melotti, and A. Dees. 2005. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides Lacepede): reproduction management and larval rearing in Italy. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4: 586–588. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2005.2s.586.
3 Fish, P. A., and J. Savitz. 1983. Variations in Home Ranges of Largemouth Bass, Yellow Perch, Bluegills, and Pumpkinseeds in an Illinois Lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1983)112<147:VIHROL>2.0.CO;2.
4 Carmichael, G. J., J. R. Tomasso, B. A. Simco, and K. B. Davis. 1984. Confinement and Water Quality-Induced Stress in Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1984)113<767:CAWQSI>2.0.CO;2.
5 Kubitza, F., and L. L Lovshin. 1997. Pond production of pellet-fed advanced juvenile and food-size largemouth bass. Aquaculture 149: 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(96)01454-8.
6 Tidwell, J. H., C. D. Webster, S. D. Coyle, and G. Schulmeister. 1998. Effect of Stocking Density on Growth and Water Quality for Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Growout in Ponds. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 29: 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1998.tb00302.x.
7 Cochran, N. J., S. D. Coyle, and J. H. Tidwell. 2009. Evaluation of Reduced Fish Meal Diets for Second Year Growout of the Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 40: 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2009.00293.x.
8 Quintero, H., L. A. Roy, J. Park, A. M. Kelly, and D. Heikes. 2019. Evaluation of alternative pond production systems for raising largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 50: 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12582.
9 Cooke, S. J., C. D. Suski, K. G. Ostrand, B. L. Tufts, and D. H. Wahl. 2004. Behavioral and physiological assessment of low concentrations of clove oil anaesthetic for handling and transporting largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquaculture 239: 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.06.028.
10 Bai, Junjie, and Shengjie Li. 2018. Development of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Culture. In Aquaculture in China: success stories and modern trends, ed. Jian-Fang Gui, Qisheng Tang, Zhongjie Li, Jiashou Liu, and Sena S. De Silva, 421–431. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
11 Si, N., B. Jie, G. Cheng, Y. Ma, L. Dong, C. Gu, M. Cheng, Y. Wei, and K. Yu. 2023. Effect of Stocking Density on Culture Efficiency and Physiological Indicators of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) under Recirculating Water Conditions in Land-Based Round Ponds. Aquaculture Research 2023: e4391306. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4391306.
12 Shi, M. 2007. The cage culture technique of largemouth bass. Jiangxi Fishery Sciences and Technology 2: 33–34.
13 Yang, P., W. Yao, Y. Wang, M. Li, X. Li, and X. Leng. 2022. Dietary effects of fish meal substitution with Clostridium autoethanogenum on flesh quality and metabolomics of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquaculture Reports 23: 101012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101012.
14 Wang, Y., J. Ni, Z. Nie, J. Gao, Y. Sun, N. Shao, Q. Li, J. Hu, P. Xu, and G. Xu. 2020. Effects of stocking density on growth, serum parameters, antioxidant status, liver and intestine histology and gene expression of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) farmed in the in-pond raceway system. Aquaculture Research 51: 5228–5240. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14862.
15 Ni, M., M. Liu, J. Lou, G. Mi, J. Yuan, and Z. Gu. 2021. Stocking density alters growth performance, serum biochemistry, digestive enzymes, immune response, and muscle quality of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in in-pond raceway system. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 47: 1243–1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-021-00948-3.
16 Jia, E., W. Jiang, W. Liu, G. Jiang, X. Li, C. Chi, and D. Zhang. 2022. Crowding stress-related protein markers: New candidates for assessing welfare of largemouth bass reared in an in-pond raceway system. Aquaculture 550: 737821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737821.
17 Romano, N., A. Surratt, N. Renukdas, J. Monico, N. Egnew, and A. K. Sinha. 2020. Assessing the feasibility of biofloc technology to largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides juveniles: Insights into their welfare and physiology. Aquaculture 520: 735008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735008.
18 Penka, T., O. Malinovskyi, J. Kristan, A. Imentai, and T. Policar. 2021. Effect of density and mixed culture of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) on growth, survival and feed conversion rate in intensive culture. Czech Journal of Animal Science 66: 428–440. https://doi.org/10.17221/59/2021-CJAS.
19 Wang, L., S.-p. Jia, X.-r. Guo, K. Lu, L. Zhang, J.-h. Gong, X.-p. Guo, et al. 2022. Effect of stocking density on growth of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) cultured in containers in a land-based recirculating aquaculture system (C-RAS). Aquaculture Research 53: 1518–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15686.
20 Jia, R., L. Wang, Y. Hou, W. Feng, B. Li, and J. Zhu. 2022. Effects of Stocking Density on the Growth Performance, Physiological Parameters, Redox Status and Lipid Metabolism of Micropterus salmoides in Integrated Rice–Fish Farming Systems. Antioxidants 11: 1215. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11071215.
21 Sammons, S. M., and M. J. Maceina. 2005. Activity patterns of largemouth bass in a subtropical US reservoir. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2005.00456.x.
22 Ahrenstorff, T. D., G. G. Sass, and M. R. Helmus. 2009. The influence of littoral zone coarse woody habitat on home range size, spatial distribution, and feeding ecology of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Hydrobiologia 623: 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9660-1.
23 Hunter, R. W., and M. J. Maceina. 2008. Movements and Home Ranges of Largemouth Bass and Alabama Spotted Bass in Lake Martin, Alabama. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 23: 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2008.9664247.
24 Hussein, G. H. G., M. Chen, P.-P. Qi, Q.-K. Cui, Y. Yu, W.-H. Hu, Y. Tian, et al. 2020. Aquaculture industry development, annual price analysis and out-of-season spawning in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Aquaculture 519: 734901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734901.
25 Hu, C.-H., H.-Q. Bie, Z.-Y. Lu, Y. Ding, H.-H. Guan, L.-H. Geng, S. Ma, Y.-X. Hu, Q.-X. Fan, and Z.-G. Shen. 2023. Out-of-season spawning of largemouth bass in a controllable recirculating system. Frontiers in Physiology 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1175075.
26 Nack, S. B., D. Bunnell, D. M. Green, and J. L. Forney. 1993. Spawning and Nursery Habitats of Largemouth Bass in the Tidal Hudson River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1993)122<0208:SANHOL>2.3.CO;2.
27 Elliot, G. V. 1976. Diel Activity and Feeding of Schooled Largemouth Bass Fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105: 624–627. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1976)105<624:DAAFOS>2.0.CO;2.
28 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2023. Micropterus salmoides, Largemouth black bass: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
29 Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin ; No. 184 184. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
30 Irwin, E. R., and R. L. Noble. 2000. Diel distribution of age-0 largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, in B. E. Jordan Lake, North Carolina (USA) and its relation to cover. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2000.eff090405.x.
31 Hasler, C. T., K. C. Hanson, S. J. Cooke, R. Tinline, C. D. Suski, G. Niezgoda, F. J. S. Phelan, and D. P. Philipp. 2007. Frequency, composition and stability of associations among individual largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) at diel, daily and seasonal scales. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16: 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00239.x.
32 Slipke, Jeffery W., and Michael J. Maceina. 2007. Movement and Use of Backwater Habitats by Largemouth Bass and White Crappie in Demopolis Reservoir, Alabama. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 22: 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2007.9664169.
33 Choi, J.-Y., and S.-K. Kim. 2020. Effects of Aquatic Macrophytes on Spatial Distribution and Feeding Habits of Exotic Fish Species Lepomis macrochirus and Micropterus salmoides in Shallow Reservoirs in South Korea. Sustainability 12: 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041447.
34 Karchesky, C. M., and D. H. Bennett. 2004. Winter Habitat Use by Adult Largemouth Bass in the Pend Oreille River, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-175.1.
35 Hanson, K. C., S. Arrosa, C. T. Hasler, C. D. Suski, D. P. Philipp, G. Niezgoda, and S. J. Cooke. 2008. Effects of lunar cycles on the activity patterns and depth use of a temperate sport fish, the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Fisheries Management and Ecology 15: 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00634.x.
36 Bunt, C. M., B. Jacobson, T. Fernandes, L. Ridgway, and B. McMeans. 2021. Site fidelity and seasonal habitat preferences of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in a temperate regulated reservoir. Hydrobiologia 848: 2595–2609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04582-1.
37 Lawson, Z. J., J. W. Gaeta, and S. R. Carpenter. 2011. Coarse Woody Habitat, Lakeshore Residential Development, and Largemouth Bass Nesting Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31: 666–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2011.608990.
38 Copeland, John R., and Richard L. Noble. 1994. Movements by Young-of-Year and Yearling Largemouth Bass and Their Implications for Supplemental Stocking. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(1994)014<0119:MBYOYA>2.3.CO;2.
39 Terofal, F. 1984. Süsswasserfische in europaischen Gewassern. Munich: Mosaik Verlag.
40 Carlson, A. R. 1973. Induced Spawning of Largemouth Bass [Micropterus salmoides (Lacépède)]. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102: 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1973)102<442:ISOLBM>2.0.CO;2.
41 Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.
42 Dassow, C. J., A. Collier, J. Y. S. Hodgson, C. D. Buelo, and J. R. Hodgson. 2018. Filial cannibalism by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides): a three-decade natural history record from a small northern temperate lake. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 33: 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2018.1477691.
43 Gross, M. R., and R. C. Sargent. 1985. The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes. American Zoologist 25: 807–822.
44 Johnson, J. M., and D. M. Post. 1996. Morphological Constraints on Intracohort Cannibalism in Age-0 Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 809–812. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1996)125<0809:MCOICI>2.3.CO;2.
45 Maia, Caroline Marques. 2023. Conclusion.
46 Carlson, D.M. 1992. Importance of winter refugia to the largemouth bass fishery in the Hudson River estuary. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7: 173–180.
47 Pawson, M.G., and G.D. Pickett. 1996. The Annual Pattern of Condition and Maturity in Bass, Dicentrarchus Labrax, in Waters Around England and Wales. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76: 107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400029040.
48 Ward, S. M., and R. M. Neumann. 1998. Seasonal and Size-Related Food Habits of Largemouth Bass in Two Connecticut Lakes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 13: 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1998.9663609.
49 Yasuno, N., Y. Fujimoto, T. Shimada, S. Shikano, and E. Kikuchi. 2020. Unbalanced population structure and reliance on intraspecific predation by largemouth bass in an agricultural pond with no available prey fish. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 35: 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2020.1853621.
50 Fleming, I. A., and P. H. Johansen. 1984. Density and agonistic behaviour in young-of-the-year largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 1454–1455. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-209.
51 Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
52 Carmichael, G. J. 1984. Long Distance Truck Transport of Intensively Reared Largemouth Bass. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 46: 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1984)46<111:LDTTOI>2.0.CO;2.
53 Zhang, Y., A. Shitu, S. Hang, Z. Ye, W. Xu, H. Zhao, J. Zhao, and S. Zhu. 2023. Assessing the Impacts of Aquaculture Soundscapes on the Growth, Physiology and Behavior of Micropterus salmoides. Fishes 8: 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8070377.
54 Hang, S., J. Zhao, B. Ji, H. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Peng, F. Zhou, X. Ding, and Z. Ye. 2021. Impact of underwater noise on the growth, physiology and behavior of Micropterus salmoides in industrial recirculating aquaculture systems. Environmental Pollution 291: 118152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118152.
55 Xi, S., P. Y., L. Tian, Y. Liu, B. Tan, and J. Niu. 2020. Interactions between dietary lipid levels and chronic exposure of legal aquaculture dose of sulfamethoxazole in juvenile largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Aquatic Toxicology 229: 105670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2020.105670.
56 Liu, Y.-H., Y. Zhao, D. Zhu, X. Wang, and Y. Yang. 2022. 1,8-cineole and ginger extract (Zingiber officinale Rosc) as stress mitigator for transportation of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides L.). Aquaculture 561: 738622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738622.
57 Qu, S.-Y., X.-P. Tan, B.-K. Li, J.-T. Liu, G.-X. Wang, and F. Ling. 2022. Malformed largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are more susceptible and vulnerable to Ichthyophthirius multifiliis infections: Immunological and histopathological study. Aquaculture 548: 737664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737664.
58 Tidwell, J.H., C.D. Webster, and S.D. Coyle. 1996. Effects of dietary protein level on second year growth and water quality for largemouth bass (Microprerus salmoides) raised in ponds. Aquaculture 145: 213–223.
59 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.
60 Zhu, S., W. Gao, Z. Wen, S. Chi, Y. Shi, W. Hu, and B. Tan. 2022. Partial substitution of fish meal by Clostridium autoethanogenum protein in the diets of juvenile largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquaculture Reports 22: 100938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100938.
61 Liao, H., P. Liu, Y. Deng, W. Zhang, C. Pan, Y. Jia, F. Long, and H. Tang. 2022. Feeding effects of low-level fish meal replacement by algal meals of Schizochytrium limacinum and Nannochloropsis salina on largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquaculture 557: 738311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738311.
contents
show all details
«