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 0 0 0
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

Over the last ten years the Pangasianodon hypophthalmus has emerged as a new aquaculture whitefish product on the world market. The rapid and dramatic increase in production of the species was essentially due to the development of hormone spawning techniques which have led to mass production capabilities. The few findings available show that P. hypophthalmus tolerate high intensive culture conditions in floating cages, ponds or net pens and reach 1 kg harvest size of within 8-10 months. Nowadays, the semi-intensive conditions represent 56.7%, and the intensive conditions represent 36.7% of total cages. Further research is needed under all 10 reported criteria on both natural behaviour and physiological effects of farming practices in order to provide recommendations for improving fish welfare.    


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
M
Potential
M
Certainty

LARVAE: WILDno data found yetFARM: hatcheries: 0.2-15 ha, ponds: 0.05-10 ha [1].

JUVENILES: WILD: 0.2-15 km [2]. FARM: extensive conditions: <288 m3 [3]; semi-intensive conditions: 288-720 m3 [3]; intensive conditions: >720 m3 [3].

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: spawning ponds: 0.02-3.0 ha [1].


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

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

Eggs and LARVAE: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILDno data found yet. FARM: intensive conditions: 3.6-4 m [3].

ADULTSWILDno data found yet. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: spawning ponds: 2-2.5 m [1].


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 [4].

LARVAE: WILD: drift downstream with the water current [3]FARM: fresh water [3]For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: seasonal variation in the distribution: move upstream October-February and return to the main stream June-August [3]. FARM:  LARVAE.

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: spawn upstream at the beginning of the rainy season (June-August) [3]. 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
M
Potential
L
Certainty

WILD: no data found yet. FARM: hormonal injection to induce ovulation and spermiation, eggs and milt are manually extracted by stripping [5] [3] [1].


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: 400-500 IND/m2 till yolk sac absorption [4].

FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: at 0.3-1 g: 400-500 IND/m2, at 14-20 g: 150-200 IND/m2 [4].

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: ponds: 40-60 IND/m2 (yields reach 250-300 tonnes/ha/crop), net cages: 100-150 IND/m3 (yields reach 100-120 kg/m3/crop), net pens: 40-60 IND/m2 (yields reach 300-350 tonnes/ha/crop) [4].

ADULTSWILD: no data found yet. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 2-3 kg/m2 [1].


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

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: cannibalistic [6] [7] [8]LAB: cannibalistic [9].

JUVENILES: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

ADULTS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

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
M
Potential
L
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: stick to the vegetation or other types of substrate [3] [4]. FARM: for details of holding systems   crit. 1 and 2.

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: Eggs.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: Eggs.

ADULTSWILD: no data found yet. FARM: Eggs.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: Eggs.


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?

?
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by transport [10] and salinities higher than 10 g/L [11]

ADULTS: no data found yet.

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?

/
Likelihood
/
Potential
/
Certainty

Eggs and LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.


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
M
Potential
L
Certainty

Common slaughter method: asphyxia [12] [4]


Side note: Domestication

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 [13], level 5 being fully domesticated. Cultured since 1960 [3].


Side note: Feeding without components of forage fishery

WILD: omnivorous [14] [4]. FARM: for JUVENILES, fish meal and fish oil may be mostly* replaced [15] [16] [17], but no data found yet for LARVAE and ADULTS.

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


Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs [13]
FARM = setting in farm environment
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] Nguyen, T.P., V.H. Nguyen, M.T. Bui, T.L. Phan, M.S. Vo, N. Nguyen, N.L. Duong, N.T.T. Thuy, J.G. Geoff, and A.I. Brett. 2011. Better Management Practices for Striped (Tra) Catfish Farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
[2] Aida, S.N., and A.D. Utomo. 2015. Striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) (Sauvage, 1878) movement and growth in Gajah Mungkur reservoir, Central Java 21: 27–38.
[3] De Silva, Sena S., and F. Brian Davy. 2010. Success Stories in Asian Aquaculture. Springer.
[4] Griffiths, D., P. Van Khanh, and T. Q. Trong. 2010. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Pangasius hypophthalmus. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[5] Legendre, M., J. Slembrouck, J. Subagja, and A.H. Kristanto. 2000. Ovulation rate, latency period and ova viability after GnRH - or hCG - induced breeding in the Asian catfish Pangasius hypophthalmus (Siluriformes, Pangasiidae) 13: 145–151.
[6] Subagja, Jojo, Jacques Slembrouck, Le Thanh Hung, and Marc Legendre. 1999. Larval rearing of an Asian catfish Pangasius hypophthalmus (Siluroidei, Pangasiidae): Analysis of precocious mortality and proposition of appropriate treatments. Aquatic Living Resources 12: 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(99)80013-8.
[7] Slembrouck, J., E. Baras, J. Subagja, L. T. Hung, and M. Legendre. 2009. Survival, growth and food conversion of cultured larvae of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus, depending on feeding level, prey density and fish density. Aquaculture 294: 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.04.038.
[8] Baras, E., J. Slembrouck, C. Cochet, D. Caruso, and M. Legendre. 2010. Morphological factors behind the early mortality of cultured larvae of the Asian catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus. Aquaculture 298: 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.10.005.
[9] Morioka, Shinsuke, Kosuke Sano, Phoutsamone Phommachan, and Bounsong Vongvichith. 2010. Growth and morphological development of laboratory-reared larval and juvenile Pangasianodon hypophthalmus. Ichthyological Research 57: 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-009-0140-z.
[10] Bui, Tam M., N. Thanh Phuong, Gia Hien Nguyen, and Sena S. De Silva. 2013. Fry and fingerling transportation in the striped catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus, farming sector, Mekong Delta, Vietnam: A pivotal link in the production chain. Aquaculture 388–391: 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.01.007.
[11] Nguyen, Phuc Trong Hong, Huong Thi Thanh Do, Peter B. Mather, and David A. Hurwood. 2014. Experimental assessment of the effects of sublethal salinities on growth performance and stress in cultured tra catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 40: 1839–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-014-9972-1.
[12] Sørensen, Nils Kristian. 2005. Slaughtering processes for farmed Pangasius in Vietnam. 12. Fiskeriforskning. Tromsø, Norway: Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Research.
[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.
[14] Orban, Elena, Teresina Nevigato, Gabriella Di Lena, Maurizio Masci, Irene Casini, Loretta Gambelli, and Roberto Caproni. 2008. New trends in the seafood market. Sutchi catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) fillets from Vietnam: Nutritional quality and safety aspects. Food Chemistry 110: 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.014.
[15] Asdari, R., M. Aliyu-Paiko, R. Hashim, and S. Ramachandran. 2011. Effects of different dietary lipid sources in the diet for Pangasius hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) juvenile on growth performance, nutrient utilization, body indices and muscle and liver fatty acid composition. Aquaculture Nutrition 17: 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2009.00705.x.
[16] Da, Chau T, Le T Hung, Håkan Berg, Jan E Lindberg, and Torbjörn Lundh. 2013. Evaluation of potential feed sources, and technical and economic considerations of small-scale commercial striped catfish (Pangasius hypothalamus) pond farming systems in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Aquaculture Research 44: 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03048.x.
[17] Da, Chau Thi, Torbjörn Lundh, and Jan Erik Lindberg. 2012. Evaluation of local feed resources as alternatives to fish meal in terms of growth performance, feed utilisation and biological indices of striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) fingerlings. Aquaculture 364–365: 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.010.