Short profile


FishEthoScore of the species

Abbreviated assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Criteria Li Po Ce
1 Home range ? ?
2 Depth range
3 Migration ?
4 Reproduction
5 Aggregation ? ?
6 Aggression ?
7 Substrate ?
8 Stress
9 Malformation
10 Slaughter
FishEthoScore 1 4 2
Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential overall potential of the individuals of the species to experience welfare under improved farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
 
                    ?     /  
  High    Medium     Low     Unclear  No findings
 
FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)



General remarks

Cyprinus carpio is a widespread freshwater fish. The native wild populations are considered vulnerable to extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and included in the list of the world's 100 worst invasive species. However, although C. carpio is the oldest reared species and currently the number one in aquaculture, there is limited information available about this species in natural conditions. Further research is also needed on current farming conditions as well as aggregation and aggression behaviour in the wild and in farms. In addition, escape of farmed carps should be avoided in order to prevent fish welfare impairment of wild populations. Furthermore, carp welfare can be improved using extensive culture systems promoting a natural habitat and behaviour of the species.


1. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the home range of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
 Likelihood
?
 Potential
L
 Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: short-distance movements [1]. FARM: FRY rearing ponds: 100-5,000 m2 [2].

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FINGERLINGS ponds: 5,000-20,000 m2 [2]; fattening ponds: 5-10 ha [2]; market size production: >5 ha [2]; specialised wintering ponds: 600-2,000 m2 [2]; storage ponds: 0.2-10 ha [2].

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.


2. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the depth range of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

H
 Likelihood
H
 Potential
M
 Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: for spawning depth ➝ SPAWNERS. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: live in middle and lower reaches of rivers and shallow confined waters [3]. FARM: shallow ponds in Europe [3]; extensive and semi-intensive conditions: ponds: 1-1.5 m [2].

ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: spawn in shoreline areas (water <1 m deep) [4]. FARM: no data found yet.


3. Are minimal farming conditions compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
 Likelihood
M
 Potential
M
 Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS [5].

LARVAE: WILD: short-distance movements [1]. FARM: fresh water [6]. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: seasonal variation in the distribution: found on littoral in spring and in deep waters in winter [7] [8]. FARM: ➝ LARVAE.

ADULTS: WILD: ➝ JUVENILES. FARM: ➝ LARVAE.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no spawning migration in some morphs [9], in other morphs, spawning migration from principal river channels to off-stream habitats [10] [11]. FARM: ➝ LARVAE.


4. Is the species likely to reproduce in captivity without manipulation? Is there potential to allow for it under farming conditions? How certain are these findings?

L
 Likelihood
H
 Potential
H
 Certainty

WILD: obligatory plant spawners [1] [12] [13]. FARM: extensive conditions: breed naturally in natural habitat [6] [14]; intensive conditions: hormonal injection to induce ovulation and spermiation, eggs are manually extracted by stripping [6] [14].


5. Is the aggregation imposed by minimal farming conditions likely to be compatible with the natural behaviour of the species? Is there potential to allow for it under farming conditions? How certain are these findings?

?
 Likelihood
?
 Potential
L
 Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: extensive conditions: 200-400 kg/ha [2] [6]; semi-intensive condition 400-1,000 kg/ha [2] [6].

FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: extensive conditions: 300-700 kg/ha [2] [6]; semi-intensive conditions: 900-1,400 kg/ha [2] [6].

JUVENILES: WILD: shoaling [15]. FARM: in ponds, graze individually during day but school at night [16]; extensive conditions: 600-800 kg/ha [2] [6]; semi-intensive conditions: 1,200-1,800 kg/ha [2] [6]. LAB: schooling [17].

ADULTS: WILD and LAB: ➝ JUVENILES. FARM: in ponds, graze individually during day but school at night [16]; extensive conditions: 600-700 kg/ha [2] [6]; semi-intensive conditions: 1,200-1,800 kg/ha [2] [6].

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: ponds: 100-300 IND/ha [12].


6. Is the species likely to be non-aggressive and non-territorial? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
 Likelihood
M
 Potential
L
 Certainty

LARVAE: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: no reports of aggression in ponds [16]. LAB: no reports of aggression [18] [17]. 

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM and LAB: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.


7. Are minimal farming conditions likely to match the natural substrate and shelter needs of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
 Likelihood
H
 Potential
H
 Certainty

Eggs and LARVAE: WILD: stick to vegetation [1] [12] [13]. FARM: extensive conditions provide substrate [19] [12] [14]. For details of holding systems ➝  crit. 1 and 2.

FRY: WILD: hanging on the grass blades for about 2 days after hatching [1]. FARM: ➝ Eggs and LARVAE.

JUVENILES: WILD: feed mainly on plankton [1]. FARM: ➝ Eggs and LARVAE.

ADULTS: WILD: forage on benthic invertebrates [19]. FARM: ➝ Eggs and LARVAE.

SPAWNERS: WILD: obligatory plant spawners [1] [13]. FARM: ➝ Eggs and LARVAE.


8. Are minimal farming conditions (handling, confinement etc.) likely not to stress the individuals of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
 Likelihood
M
 Potential
L
 Certainty

LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by netting, crowding [20] [21], and high stocking density [22].

ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.


9. Are malformations of this species likely to be rare under farming conditions? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
 Likelihood
L
 Potential
L
 Certainty

LARVAE: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: no bone deformities [23]. FARM: malformations of eyes, head, operculum, and spine in 25% [24], bone deformities in 15-23% [25] [23].

ADULTS: WILD: no bone deformities [23]. FARM: malformations of eyes, operculum, spine in 25% [24], malformations of head in 15-25% [24] [25], bone deformities in 15-23% [25] [23]. 


10. Is a humane slaughter protocol likely to be applied under minimal farming conditions? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
 Likelihood
H
 Potential
M
 Certainty

Common slaughter method: a) asphyxia (followed by percussion) [26] [27], b) percussion, and c) electrical stunning [28] [26]. High-standard slaughter method: indications that percussive plus electrical stunning or immersion in clove oil are most effective [27] [28]. Further research needed for a specific protocol.


Side note: Domestication

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 [29] [30], fully domesticated. The first records of aquaculture are from China about 2,500 years ago [6] [14].


Side note: Feeding without components of forage fishery

All age classes: WILD: omnivorous [14] [13] [31]. FARM: fish meal and fish oil may be partly* replaced by non-forage fishery components [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37].

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


Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals [29]
FARM = setting in farm environment
FINGERLINGS = fry with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a finger; for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogentic development
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
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild


Bibliography

[1] Balon, Eugene K. 1995. Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129. The Carp: 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00227-F.
[2] Horvath, L., G. Tamas, and C. Seagrave. 2002. Wiley: Carp and Pond Fish Culture: Including Chinese Herbivorous Species, Pike, Tench, Zander, Wels Catfish, Goldfish, African Catfish and Sterlet. 2nd Edition.
[3] Flajšhans, M., and G. Hulata. 2017. Common Carp - Cyprinus carpio Biology, ecology and genetics. Genimpact final scientific report. http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/ksmsc/teaching/courses/fish336/materials/Common%20Carp.pdf. Accessed March 31.
[4] Smith, B. 2004. Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) spawning dynamics and early growth  in  the  lower  River  Murray,  South  Australia. Ph.D.  dissertation, Australia: University of Adelaide.
[5] Newbold, L. R., and P. S. Kemp. 2015. Influence of corrugated boundary hydrodynamics on the swimming performance and behaviour of juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Ecological Engineering 82: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.027.
[6] Rouhani, Qurban. 2010. Manual Rural Freshwater Aquaculture. Rural Fisheries Programme Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science.
[7] García-Berthou, Emili. 2001. Size- and depth-dependent variation in habitat and diet of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquatic Sciences 63: 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-001-8045-6.
[8] Penne, Christopher R., and Clay L. Pierce. 2008. Seasonal Distribution, Aggregation, and Habitat Selection of Common Carp in Clear Lake, Iowa. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1050–1062. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-112.1.
[9] Reynolds, L.F. 1983. Migration Patterns of Five Fish Species in the Murray-Darling River System. Marine and Freshwater Research 34.
[10] Johnsen, Peter B., and Arthur D. Hasler. 1977. Winter Aggregations of Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as Revealed by Ultrasonic Tracking. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1977)106556:WAOCCC2.0.CO;2.
[11] Rodriguez-Ruiz, A., and C. Granado-Lorencio. 1992. Spawning period and migration of three species of cyprinids in a stream with Mediterranean regimen (SW Spain). Journal of Fish Biology 41: 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02682.x.
[12] Horvath, L., G. Tamas, A.G. Coche, E. Kovács, T. Moth-Poulsen, and A. Woynarovich. 2015. Training manual on the artificial propagation of carps. A handout for on-farm training workshops on artificial propagation of common carp and Chinese major carps in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. 978-92-5-108689–6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[13] Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2017. Cyprinus carpio summary page. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
[14] Peteri, A. 2004. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Cyprinus carpio. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[15] Bajer, P. G., C. J. Chizinski, and P. W. Sorensen. 2011. Using the Judas technique to locate and remove wintertime aggregations of invasive common carp. Fisheries Management and Ecology 18: 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2011.00805.x.
[16] Rahman, M. M., and C. G. Meyer. 2009. Effects of food type on diel behaviours of common carp Cyprinus carpio in simulated aquaculture pond conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 2269–2278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02236.x.
[17] Huntingford, F. A., G. Andrew, S. Mackenzie, D. Morera, S. M. Coyle, M. Pilarczyk, and S. Kadri. 2010. Coping strategies in a strongly schooling fish, the common carp Cyprinus carpio. Journal of Fish Biology 76: 1576–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02582.x.
[18] Rahman, Mustafizur M., Marc C. J. Verdegem, Leopold A. J. Nagelkerke, Mohammad A. Wahab, and Johan A. J. Verreth. 2008. Swimming, grazing and social behaviour of rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) in tanks under fed and non-fed conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.09.008.
[19] Parkos III, Joseph J, Jr. Santucci Victor J, and David H Wahl. 2003. Effects of adult common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-011.
[20] Dobšíková, R., Z. Svobodová, J. Bláhová, H. Modrá, and J. Velíšek. 2006. Stress Response to Long Distance Transportation of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Acta Veterinaria Brno 75: 437–448. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200675030437.
[21] Dobšíková, R., Z. Svobodová, J. Bláhová, H. Modrá, and J. Velíšek. 2009. The effect of transport on biochemical and haematological indices of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Czech Journal of Animal Science 54: 510–518.
[22] Ruane, N M, E C Carballo, and J Komen. 2002. Increased stocking density influences the acute physiological stress response of common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.). Aquaculture Research 33: 777–784. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2002.00717.x.
[23] GJURČEVIĆ, E., S. KUŽIR, Z. PETRINEC, D. STANIN, Z. MATAŠIN, and Z. KOZARIĆ. 2007. Incidence of vertebral column deformities in farmed and wild co mmon carp Cyprinus carpio reared under same conditions. In Proceedings of the World Aquaculture, 343–344. San Antonio, Texas.
[24] Al-Harbi, A.H. 2001. Skeletal Deformities in Cultured Common Carp Cyprinus carpio L. Asian Fisheries Science 14: 247–254.
[25] Kužir, S., L. Maleničić, D. Stanin, T.T. Vukičević, I. Alić, and E. Gjurčević. 2015. Description of head deformities in cultured common carp (Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758). VETERINARSKI ARHIV 85: 437–449.
[26] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 7: 1013. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
[27] Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp  (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
[28] Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
[29] 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.
[30] 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.
[31] Stergiou, K., D. C. Bobori, F. G. Ekmekçi, M. Gökoğlu, P. K. Karachle, G. Minos, Y. Özvarol, I. Salvarina, A. S. Tarkan, and L. Vilizzi. 2014. New Fisheries-related data from the Mediterranean Sea (April 2014). Mediterranean Marine Science 15: 213–224. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.738.
[32] Hossain, M. A., and K. Jauncey. 1989. Nutritional evaluation of some Bangladeshi oilseed meals as partial substitutes for fish meal in the diet of common carp, Cyprinus carpio L. Aquaculture Research 20: 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1989.tb00351.x.
[33] Escaffre, Anne M., JoséL Zambonino Infante, Chantal L. Cahu, Muriel Mambrini, Pierre Bergot, and Sadasivam J. Kaushik. 1997. Nutritional value of soy protein concentrate for larvae of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) based on growth performance and digestive enzyme activities. Aquaculture 153: 63–80.
[34] Hasan, M. R., D. J. Macintosh, and K. Jauncey. 1997. Evaluation of some plant ingredients as dietary protein sources for common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) fry. Aquaculture 151. Fish Nutrition and Feeding Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Feeding and Nutrition in Fish: 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(96)01499-8.
[35] Siddhuraju, P., and K. Becker. 2001. Preliminary nutritional evaluation of Mucuna seed meal (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): An assessment by growth performance and feed utilisation. Aquaculture 196: 105–123.
[36] Mazurkiewicz, Jan. 2009. Utilization of domestic plant components in diets for common carp Cyprinus carpio L. Archives of Polish Fisheries 17: 5–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10086-009-0001-4.
[37] Bergamin, Giovani Taffarel, Suziane Ghedini Martinelli, Della Flora, Marco Aurélio Lopes, Fabio de Araújo Pedron, Leila Picolli da Silva, and João Radünz Neto. 2011. Plant protein sources on common carp feeding. Ciência Rural 41: 1660–1666. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782011000900028.