Information
Version: B | 1.1 (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
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 high 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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium 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 high for minimal and 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?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.7 Substrate
Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).
What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.8 Stress
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).
What is the probability of the species not being stressed?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for 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?
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.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 28, 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 8. FARM: no data found yet.
Glossary
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 28
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
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
OCEANODROMOUS = living and migrating in the sea
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Kentouri, M, N Papandroulakis, and P Divanach. 1995. Culture of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, in Crete. Present knowledge, problems and perspectives.
3 Helenic Fishfarming. 2018. Facilities | Hellenic Fishfarming S.A. http://www.helfish.gr/en/company/facilities/. Accessed June 22.
4 Grimes, Churchill B, Charles S Manooch, and Gene R Huntsman. 1982. Reef and Rock Outcropping Fishes of the Outer Continental Shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and Ecological Notes on the Red Porgy and Vermilion Snapper: 13.
5 Afonso, Pedro, Jorge Fontes, Rui Guedes, Fernando Tempera, Kim N. Holland, and Ricardo S. Santos. 2009. A Multi-Scale Study of Red Porgy Movements and Habitat Use, and Its Application to the Design of Marine Reserve Networks. In Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices, ed. Jennifer L. Nielsen, Haritz Arrizabalaga, Nuno Fragoso, Alistair Hobday, Molly Lutcavage, and John Sibert, 9:423–443. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9640-2_25.
6 Mihelakakis, Apostolos, Takao Yoshimatsu, and Christos Tsolkas. 2001. Spawning in captivity and early life history of cultured red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 199: 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00560-9.
7 Hassler, William W., and Charles S. Manooch. 1978. Synopsis of biological data on the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus). FAO Fisheries Synopsis 116. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.63258.
8 Labropoulou, Mary, Athanasios Machias, and Nikolaos Tsimenides. 1999. Habitat selection and diet of juvenile red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758). Fishery Bulletin: 13.
9 Afonso, Pedro, Fernando Tempera, and Gui Menezes. 2008. Population structure and habitat preferences of red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) in the Azores, central north Atlantic. Fisheries Research 93: 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.06.009.
10 Vargas‐Chacoff, Luis, África Calvo, Ignacio Ruiz‐Jarabo, Francisco Villarroel, José Luis Muñoz, Ana Belén Tinoco, Salvador Cárdenas, and Juan Miguel Mancera. 2015. Growth performance, osmoregulatory and metabolic modifications in red porgy fry, Pagrus pagrus, under different environmental salinities and stocking densities. Aquaculture Research 42: 1269–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02715.x.
11 Pavlidis, Michalis, Maria Karkana, Eleftheria Fanouraki, and Nikos Papandroulakis. 2008. Environmental control of skin colour in the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture Research 39: 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01937.x.
12 Kalinowski, C. T., L. E. Robaina, and M. S. Izquierdo. 2011. Effect of dietary astaxanthin on the growth performance, lipid composition and post-mortem skin colouration of red porgy Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture International 19: 811–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-010-9401-0.
13 Fanouraki, E., P. Divanach, and M. Pavlidis. 2007. Baseline values for acute and chronic stress indicators in sexually immature red porgy (Pagrus pagrus). Aquaculture 265: 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.01.006.
14 Hood, Peter B, and Andrea K Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 98: 723–723.
15 Devries, Douglas Alan. 2006. Life History, Reproductive Ecology, and Demography of the Red Porgy, Pagrus Pagrus, in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
16 Papandroulakis, Nikos, Maroudio Kentouri, and Pascal Divanach. 2004. Biological Performance of Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus) Larvae under Intensive Rearing Conditions with the use of an Automated Feeding System. Aquaculture International 12: 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AQUI.0000032080.59789.5f.
17 Hernández-Cruz, C. M, M Salhi, M Bessonart, M. S Izquierdo, M. M González, and H Fernández-Palacios. 1999. Rearing techniques for red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) during larval development. Aquaculture 179: 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00182-9.
18 Pavlidis, M., E. Karantzali, E. Fanouraki, C. Barsakis, S. Kollias, and N. Papandroulakis. 2011. Onset of the primary stress in European sea bass Dicentrarhus labrax, as indicated by whole body cortisol in relation to glucocorticoid receptor during early development. Aquaculture 315: 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.09.013.
19 Rotllant, J, M Pavlidis, MEAM Kentouri, ME Abad, and L Tort. 1997. Non-specific immune responses in the red porgy Pagrus pagrus after crowding stress. Aquaculture 156: 279–290.
20 Rotllant, J., L. Tort, D. Montero, M. Pavlidis, M. Martinez, S.E. Wendelaar Bonga, and P.H.M. Balm. 2003. Background colour influence on the stress response in cultured red porgy Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 223: 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00157-1.
21 Van der Salm, A.L., M. Martínez, G. Flik, and S.E. Wendelaar Bonga. 2004. Effects of husbandry conditions on the skin colour and stress response of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 241: 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.08.038.
22 Büke, Ergun, Zafer Akpınar, Bülent Ayekin, and Hakkı Dereli. 2015. Spawning Performance and Larval Rearing of Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus L., 1758) Under Culture Conditions. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 22: 303–309.
23 Roo, Francisco Javier, Carmen María Hernández-Cruz, Juan Antonio Socorro, Hipólito Fernández-Palacios, and María Soledad Izquierdo. 2010. Advances in rearing techniques of Pagrus pagrus, (Linnaeus, 1758): comparison between intensive and semi-intensive larval rearing systems. Aquaculture Research 41: 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02244.x.
24 Izquierdo, M. S., J. Socorro, and J. Roo. 2010. Studies on the appearance of skeletal anomalies in red porgy: effect of culture intensiveness, feeding habits and nutritional quality of live preys. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26: 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01429.x.
25 Vardanis, George, Liliana Sfichi-Duke, Lluis Tort, Pascal Divanach, Kiriakos Kotzabasis, and Michail Pavlidis. 2011. The use of biochemical, sensorial and chromaticity attributes as indicators of postmortem changes in commercial-size, cultured red porgy Pagrus pagrus, stored on ice: Freshness indicators in red porgy. Aquaculture Research 42: 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02628.x.
26 van De Vis, Hans, Steve Kestin, David Robb, Jörg Oehlenschläger, Bert Lambooij, Werner Münkner, Holmer Kuhlmann, et al. 2003. Is humane slaughter of fish possible for industry? Aquaculture Research 34: 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00804.x.
27 Lines, J.A., and J. Spence. 2014. Humane harvesting and slaughter of farmed fish. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 33: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2284.
28 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.
