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

Salmo carpio is an Italian salmonid species restricted to Lake Garda in northern Italy, and it is currently critically endangered. Its life expectancy is 5 years. S. carpio was introduced in several Italian lakes and in New Zealand without success. An Italian Institute started a farming programme to increase the natural population and to sell them to the public. There is limited information about the behaviour and home range of S. carpio in the wild, as well as limited publicly available information about its farming conditions.


1. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the home range of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: fibreglass tanks: 4 m2 (2x2 m) for FRY [1] and FINGERLINGS [1].

JUVENILES: WILDno data found yet. FARM: tanks and raceways: total area ~5,000 m2 [2].

ADULTS: WILDno data found yet. and FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.


2. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the depth range of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

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

JUVENILES: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

ADULTS: WILD: PELAGIC, reaching depths of 100-200 m [1], caught at 25-30 m [3] and 80 m [1]. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: spawn at 50-200 m in lake beds [4] [5] [1]. FARM: no data found yet.


3. Are minimal farming conditions compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS [3] [4] [1].

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: based on distribution (Lake Garda), estimated 9-15 h photoperiod, fresh water; 8-22 °C [1]. FARM: for details of holding systems crit. 1.

JUVENILES:  LARVAE and FRY.

ADULTS LARVAE and FRY.

SPAWNERS: WILD: based on distribution (Lake Garda), estimated 9-15 h photoperiod, fresh water. Migration between spawning and foraging areas [4]: for reproduction to the north in the winter and centre and south in the summer [3] [1]. FARM: no data found yet.


4. Is the species likely to reproduce in captivity without manipulation? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
L
Certainty

WILD: sexual maturity: males: 3 years, females: 4 years [3] [4], although sexually active a year earlier [3]. 2 spawning seasons: long one (Dec-Feb) and/or short one (July-Aug) [6] [3] [4], no correlation between moment of birth and breeding season [7]. FARM: sexual maturity: males: 16-18 months; females: 24 months [4]. Can spawn twice/year [4]; gametes are manually or surgically taken from the abdominal cavity of males and females after anaesthesia [1].


5. Is the aggregation imposed by minimal farming conditions likely to be compatible with the natural behaviour of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: schooling [8]. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: schooling [8]. FARM: no data found yet.

ADULTS: WILD: schooling [8]. FARM: gregarious [4] [9]. For salmonids in general, 25 kg/m3 [10]. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to S. carpio as well.

SPAWNERS: WILD: schooling [8]. Gregarious during seasonal migrations between spawning and foraging areas [4]. FARM: gregarious [4].


6. Is the species likely to be non-aggressive and non-territorial? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

/
Likelihood
/
Potential
/
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.


7. Are minimal farming conditions likely to match the natural substrate and shelter needs of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for details of holding systems crit. 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM:  LARVAE and FRY.

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM:  LARVAE and FRY.

SPAWNERS: WILD: two spawning areas: submerged alluvial fans and coastal cliffs [11]. Lake beds with abundant oxygen, gravel, and cobbles [4] [1] without mud [4]. FARM: no data found yet.


8. Are minimal farming conditions (handling, confinement etc.) likely not to stress the individuals of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

/
Likelihood
/
Potential
/
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.


9. Are malformations of this species likely to be rare under farming conditions? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: tail malformations and swim bladder problems in 10%, possibly due to higher incubation temperature of 11 °C [1].

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.


10. Is a humane slaughter protocol likely to be applied under minimal farming conditions? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

Common slaughter method: for O. kisutch, anaesthetised with high CO2 or iced water [12], then bled by cutting gill arches and immersing in iced water [12] [13]; for O. tshawytscha, blow to the head, then bled by cutting gill arches [14]. High-standard slaughter method: for O. mykiss, electrical stunning before killing by chilling or bleeding [15] [16] [17] [18]; for S. salar, a protocol for electrical and percussive stunning and killing by bleeding is available [19] [20] [21] [22]; for S. trutta, electrical stunning followed by ice-water slurry [23]; for S. alpinus alpinus, electrical stunning [16]. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to S. carpio as well.


Side note: Domestication

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 [24], level 5 being fully domesticated.


Side note: Feeding without components of forage fishery

All age classes: WILD: planktivorous [3] [25]-[4] [1]ADULTS also piscivorous [3]. FARM: FRY fed with water collected from the lake at 70-80 m [1], no data found yet on replacement studies for all age classes.


Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs [24]
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
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
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild


Bibliography

[1] Parati, Katia, Gaetano Gentili, Giovanni Loris Alborali, and Mariapia Viglione. 2013. Il Carpione Del Garda: Tutela di una Specie a Rischio di Estinzione. 149. Quaderni Della Ricerca. Regione Lombardia: Direzione Generale Agricoltura.
[2] Lunelli, Fernando. 2017. L’allevamento Intensivo del Carpione: 12.
[3] Melotto, S., and G. Alessio. 1990. Biology of carpione, Salmo carpio L., an endemic species of Lake Garda (Italy). Journal of Fish Biology 37: 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb02533.x.
[4] Lunelli, Fernando, Filippo Faccenda, Ivano Confortini, Cristina Cappelletti, and Francesca Ciutti. 2012. Salmo carpio: an Endemic Salmonid of Lake Garda, Northern Italy. World Aquaculture: 46–49.
[5] Lunelli, Fernando, Filippo Faccenda, Filippo Motta, Cristina Cappelletti, and Francesca Ciutti. 2012. Rearing of carpione Salmo carpio, an endemic salmonid in Lake Garda (Italy). Archivio Istituzionale Della Ricerca. Fondazione Edmund Mach.
[6] Merlo, Simonetta. 1954. Esame biometrico comparativo dei Salmo carpio a riproduzione estiva e invernale. Bolletino di zoologia 21: 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250005409438167.
[7] Merlo, Simonetta. 1955. Accrescimento e ciclo vitale del « Salmo carpio » del Garda. Bolletino di zoologia 22: 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250005509439205.
[8] Meraner, Andreas, and Andrea Gandolfi. 2018. Genetics of the Genus Salmo in Italy: Evolutionary History, Population Structure, Molecular Ecology and Conservation. In Brown trout: biology, ecology and management, ed. Javier Lobón-Cervía and Nuria Sanz. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[9] Buon agricoltura. 2020. La Riscoperta del Carpione del Garda. Italy.
[10] Colombo, Stefano, Stefania Arioli, Simone Guglielmetti, Fernando Lunelli, and Diego Mora. 2016. Virome-associated antibiotic-resistance genes in an experimental aquaculture facility. Edited by Pascal Simonet. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92: fiw003. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw003.
[11] Lunelli, Fernando. 2010. The reproductive sites of Garda Lake carpione (Salmo carpio): monitoring and conservation status. Centro Transferimento Tecnologico Rapporto 2010. San Michele all’Adige (TN): Istituto agrario di San Michele all’Adige.
[12] Fairgrieve, W. 2009. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Oncorhynchus kisutch. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[13] LocalCoho Farms. 2021. Personal communication.
[14] Johnson, W S. 1984. Photoperiod Induced Delayed Maturation Of Freshwater Reared Chinook Salmon. Aquaculture 43: 279–287.
[15] Robb, D H F, and S C Kestin. 2002. Methods Used to Kill Fish: Field Observations and Literature Reviewed. Animal Welfare 11: 269–282.
[16] Lines, J. A., D. H. Robb, S. C. Kestin, S. C. Crook, and T. Benson. 2003. Electric stunning: a humane slaughter method for trout. Aquacultural Engineering 28: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(03)00021-9.
[17] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. EFSA Journal 7: 954. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.954.
[18] Concollato, Anna, Rolf Erik Olsen, Sheyla Cristina Vargas, Antonio Bonelli, Marco Cullere, and Giuliana Parisi. 2016. Effects of stunning/slaughtering methods in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from death until rigor mortis resolution. Aquaculture 464: 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.06.009.
[19] Robb, D. H. F., S. B. Wotton, J. L. McKinstry, N. K. Sørensen, S. C. Kestin, and N. K. Sørensen. 2000. Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: determination of the onset of brain failure by electroencephalography. Veterinary Record 147: 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.11.298.
[20] Roth, Bjorn, Erik Slinde, and David H. F. Robb. 2007. Percussive stunning of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and the relation between force and stunning. Aquacultural Engineering 36: 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.11.001.
[21] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Atlantic Salmon. EFSA Journal 7: 1011. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1011.
[22] Lambooij, E., E. Grimsbø, J. W. van de Vis, H. G. M. Reimert, R. Nortvedt, and B. Roth. 2010. Percussion and electrical stunning of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) after dewatering and subsequent effect on brain and heart activities. Aquaculture 300: 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.12.022.
[23] Castanheira, Maria Filipa. 2017. Personal communication.
[24] 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.
[25] Alessio, G., S. Melotto, and E. Oppi. 1990. Indagini fondamentali sulla biologia del carpione, Salmo carpio L., del lago di Garda. Rivista di Idrobiologia 29: 51–68.