homebutton

Tinfoil barb

Barbonymus schwanenfeldii

Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Tinfoil barb)
enlarge button
Distribution
no distribution map available
least concern



Information


Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: C | 2.1 (2024-01-09)


Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2022-08-17
Version information:
  • Appearance: C
  • Last major update: 2023-10-31
  • Last minor update: 2024-01-09

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2024. Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2022-08-17. Version C | 2.1. https://fair-fish-database.net.«





WelfareScore | farm

Barbonymus schwanenfeldii
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

Barbonymus schwanenfeldii is a freshwater fish naturally inhabiting Mekong and Chao Phraya basins besides Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and Borneo in Asia, but it was already introduced in the south-east of the USA, Philippines, Indonesia, and Ivory Coast. It is a tropical BENTHOPELAGIC barb that can be found in streams, canals, ditches, flooded fields, lakes, and especially in medium- to large-sized rivers. B. schwanenfeldii is considered omnivorous, but mainly herbivorous. It is commercially important for the ornamental fish trade and occasionally used as bait. Although it has been cultured for its taste and low trophic level, this barb apparently is not much domesticated yet: ADULTS are taken from the wild to become SPAWNERS, for example. Besides that, further research about important wild information of this fish is still missing, especially about home range, aggregation densities, reproduction, and substrate use. Relevant information to better assess farming conditions of this barb is also missing, especially about its stress response and malformation rates in captivity. A humane slaughter protocol still remains to be established. Together, this missing data makes it difficult to assess and improve the welfare conditions of B. schwanenfeldii.




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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the missing wild information in all age classes does not allow a comparison with farming conditions. 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: aquarium: 0.1 m2 (0.4 x 0.3 m) 1; concrete ponds: 10 m2 (2 x 5 m) 2; earthen ponds: 20 m2 (5 x 4 m) 2; cages: 0.3 m2 (0.5 x 0.5 m) 3, 4 m2 (2 x 2 m) 2, 9 m3 4. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 100-1,000 m2 5, tanks: 1.4 m2 (1.2 x 1.2 m) 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: cages: 0.3 m2 (0.5 x 0.5 m) 6, 1.5-5.2 m2 (1.5 x 1 m, 2.6 x 2 m) 7; plastic boxes: 3.1 m2 (2 m ∅) 8. For the related Barbonymus gonionotus, earthen ponds: 800 m2 (40 x 20 m) 9, 400 m2 (20 x 20 m) 10, 75-980 m2 11 12 13; ricefields with a peripheral trench: 550 m2 and ~100 m2, respectively 14 15; ricefield with a refuge canal: 166 m2 16; outdoor concrete tanks: 24 m2 (4.9 x 4.9 m) 17. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: for the related B. gonionotus, ponds 18 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS). Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ADULTS. Spawning aquarium: 0.5 m2 (1 x 0.5 m) 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 20-30 m or 2,000-25,000 m2 5; storage tanks: 200 m2 (10 x 20 m), 450 m2 (15 x 30 m) 5; breeding tanks: 3.8 m2 (2.5 x 1.5 m), 8 m2 (4 x 2 m), 18.8 m2 (7.5 x 2.5 m), 2 m ∅ 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • 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 some ponds and cages do not cover the whole range in the wild. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other ponds overlap with the range in the wild, although we cannot be sure about the actual wild range. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as specific wild and farm information is missing.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: semi-buoyant 19.
  • FARM: plastic bowls: 2 cm 1.
  • LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: man-made lake: max 97.5 m, mean: 16 m 20 with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: aquarium: 0.1 m 1; concrete ponds, earthen ponds, cages: 1 m 2 3. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.5-1.2 m 5, tanks: 1.2 m 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 21, bottom habit 22. Man-made lake: max 97.5 m, mean: 16 m 20 with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: cages: 1 m 7 6; plastic boxes: 1 m 8. For the related Barbonymus gonionotus, earthen ponds: 1.5-1.9 m 16 11 12 9 13 10; ricefields: 0.03-0.4 m 16 23 15; peripheral trench in a ricefield: 1 m 14 15; refuge canal in a ricefield: 0.7 m 16; outdoor concrete tanks: 1.3 m 17. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 21, bottom habit 22. Lake: caught in 2 m (lake depth: 3.1-4.3 m) 24. Man-made lake: max 97.5 m, mean: 16 m 20 with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.8-2 m 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD:  LARVAE and FRY.
  • FARM: spawning aquarium: 0.5 m 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1.0-2.5 m or deeper depending on climate zone 5; storage tanks: 1.0-1.5 m 5; breeding tanks: 1 m 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • 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 at least SPAWNERS undertake 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, as the range in captivity potentially overlaps with the migration distance (although unknown). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as there is wild migration distance information missing in all age classes.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

POTAMODROMOUS 25 26.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: remain in rivers until they become FINGERLINGS, then migrate to other parts of the lake 20, congregating in flooded forest, grassland, lakes 25. 11-13 PHOTOPERIOD 27 20 21 24, range 22-40 °C 28-21 25 20 24, mean 26.8-30 °C 25, fresh water 29 21 24.
  • FARM: aquarium: 25-28 °C 1; cages: 23.7 °C 30.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: in main rivers during the dry season (February-November) 25. Young JUVENILES: congregate in flooded forest, grassland, lakes 25. 11-13 PHOTOPERIOD 27 31 20 21 24, 22-34 °C 28-21 20 22 24, 20-40 °C 25, fresh water 31 29 21 24. Non-native waters: 9-15 h PHOTOPERIOD 32, fresh water 32. Young JUVENILES: range 25.3-40 °C, mean 26.8-30 °C 25.
  • FARM: floating cages: range 20.4-31.3 °C 7 6, mean 27 °C 7. Plastic boxes: 24.3-26.9 °C 8.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: in main rivers during the dry season (February-November) 25. 11-13 PHOTOPERIOD 27 31 20 21 24, range 22-34 °C 28-21 25 20 22 24, 20-40 °C 25, mean 27-27.7 °C 25, fresh water 31 29 21 24.
  • FARM: ponds: 27.1-27.5 °C 2 (for wild-caught ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: upriver spawning migrations during the rainy season 25 20 with rising water levels (December-January) 25. 11-13 PHOTOPERIOD 27 20 21 24, range 22-34 °C 28-21 25 20 1 24, mean 27-27.7 °C 25, fresh water 29 21 24.
  • FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ADULTS. Ponds (during spawning): 25 °C 2.
  • 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 theses circumstances?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as the species is manipulated (separation by sex, hormonal manipulation, stripping) and may be taken from the wild. Omitting separation by sex might be verified for the farming context, but is not enough of an improvement to justify Po=M. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

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: spawning is triggered by rainfall periods (water level increasing) 20, spawn throughout wet season (December-January) 25. Can spawn 2-3 times/year 27 20 (March and October 20), but spawns continuously 25 27 when there is no seasonal flooding 27.
  • FARM: ADULTS are taken from the wild, mature at >1.5 years old 2. SPAWNERS are kept separated by sex 2 or kept in pairs for spawning 2. Spawn in rainy season (October-November) 2. Sex ratio: 1:1 1 2. Cannulation method used to evaluate gonadal maturation 1 2. Hormonal manipulation to induce spawning 1 2 followed by stripping males and females and artificially mixing eggs and sperm 2.
  • LAB: sex ratio 1:1 19. Cannot breed naturally in captive conditions 19. Intraovarian biopsy to select mature females 19. Hormonal manipulation to induce spawning followed by stripping females 19.



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, as the missing wild information on specific densities in schools does not allow a comparison with farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: in large schools mixed with Leptobarbus hoevenii 25, schooling 33-32.
  • FARM: aquarium: 0.2 IND/cm2 1; concrete ponds, earthen ponds, net cages: 13 IND/m2 2, 0.2 IND/L or 40 IND/m2 in polyculture with Oreochromis niloticus of overall density of 0.6 IND/L or 150 IND/m2 3 30. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1,000 IND/m2 for LARVAE in nursery ponds, 12.5-25 IND/m2 for FRY in breeding ponds 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: no data found yet

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: LARVAE and FRY.
  • FARM: floating cages: 0.12-0.14 IND/L 7, 240 IND/m2 6, 80-160 IND/m2 in polyculture with O. niloticus of overall density of 240 IND/m2 6. Plastic boxes: 0.1 IND/L 8.
  • LAB: home aquaria: best kept in groups of at least 5, better more 34.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: schooling 33-32.
  • FARM: ponds: 2-5 IND/m2 (males and females in separate ponds) 2 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
  • LAB: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: schooling 33-32.
  • FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS  ADULTS. Ponds: kept in pairs for spawning 2.
  • LAB: JUVENILES.



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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as there is no aggression and no competition reported. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as we are lacking studies specifically addressing aggression (or lack thereof).

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no aggression and no competition reported in polyculture with O. niloticus 3 30.
  • LAB: home aquaria: peaceful 34.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no aggression reported in polyculture with O. niloticus and low or no competition 6.
  • LAB: home aquaria: peaceful 34.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: home aquaria: peaceful 34.

SPAWNERS:

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

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species uses substrate, but aquaria and plastic bowls/boxes are devoid of it. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as a) earthen ponds for JUVENILES, ADULTS, and SPAWNERS (which are not replaced by concrete or stone bottom) need to be verified for the farming context and b) whether adding plants to cages will satisfy the needs of this BENTHOPELAGIC species needs to be verified, too. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs:

  • WILD: lakes: no submerged or floating vegetation 24.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems F1. For carps in general, double-walled hapa nets (e.g., mosquito netting and whole cloth) to protect from predators 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: lakes: rich in plankton 25, no submerged or floating vegetation 24, transparency range 0.2-3.5 m 25 20, mean 0.3-0.7 m 25, 257.28-268.11 NTU 24.
  • FARM: cages: submerged water plant (Hydrilla verticillata) 3. For details of holding systems F2 and F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 21, bottom habit 22. Lakes: rich in plankton 25, no submerged or floating vegetation 24, transparency 3.5 m 20, 257.28-268.11 NTU 24. Young JUVENILES: transparency range 0.2-2 m, mean 0.3-0.7 m 25.
  • FARM: cages: transparency range 0.1-0.8 m, mean 0.2 m 7, bundles of leaves added 7, high density of sinking water plants like Hydrilla verticillata 6. For details of holding systems F2 and F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: BENTHOPELAGIC 21, bottom habit 22. Lakes: no submerged or floating vegetation 24, increased density with increasing phytoplankton density 24, transparency range 0.1-3.5 m 25 20, mean 0.2-0.3 m 25, 257.28-268.11 NTU 24.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems F2 and F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: spawn on gravel and sand in headwater region 25. Lakes: no submerged or floating vegetation 24, transparency range 0.1-3.5 m 25 20, mean 0.2-0.3 m 25, 257.28-268.11 NTU 24.
  • FARM: for details of holding systems F2 and F1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



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?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

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

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • 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. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

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: for carps in general, malformations due to insufficient nutrition 5. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

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

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • 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 asphyxia does not induce unconsciousness fast and as there is no killing while still unconscious. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as there are promising stunning and slaughter methods, but they need to be verified for B. schwanenfeldii. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as research specifically on the focus species is missing.

Likelihoodscore-li
Potentialscore-po
Certaintyscore-ce

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: common slaughter method: commonly sold fresh 35-21, so probably asphyxia. High-standard slaughter method: for the related Cyprinus carpio, electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 36 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 37). Further research needed for a specific protocol and to determine whether this applies to B. schwanenfeldii as well.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

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

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM:  JUVENILES.
  • 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 3 38, 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: omnivorous 39 40 41-32 35-21 21 – mainly herbivorous 35-21, being considered detritivorous 39 41-32.
  • FARM: feed on cassava and Passiflora leaves efficiently, but better growth with commercial feed 7 of high protein level (32%) 8.
  • LAB: better growth with commercial feed of high protein level (32%) 29.



Glossary


ADULTS = mature individuals
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 38
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
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild



Bibliography


1 Kusmini, I. I., D. Radona, V. A. Prakoso, R. Gustiano, D. T. Soelistyowati, O. Carman, and K. W. Hidayat. 2020. Outbreeding Performance of Tinfoil Barb Barbonymus schwanenfeldii from Java and Kalimantan for Aquaculture Development. E3S Web of Conferences 147: 01009. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202014701009.
2 Kusmini, I. I., R. Gustiano, D. Radona, and K. Kurniawan. 2021. Domestication Strategies of Tinfoil Barb Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker, 1854): Potential Candidate for Freshwater Aquaculture Development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 934: 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/934/1/012003.
3 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, R. Fahmi, and Misran. 2021. The competition index and growth performance between tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and native fish spesies Laut Tawar Lake in polyculture system. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 674: 012080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/674/1/012080.
4 Christensen, Mike. 1993. Economic analysis of floating cage culture of Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, using chicken manure and other fresh feeds. Asian Fisheries Science 6: 271–281. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.1993.6.3.003.
5 Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
6 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, and F. Fahma. 2022. Polyculture of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and lemeduk (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) in floating net cages as a strategy for utilizing natural food. E3S Web of Conferences 339: 01008. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202233901008.
7 Christensen, M. S. 1994. Growth of Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, Fed Various Feeds, Including Fresh Chicken Manure, in Floating Cages. Asian Fisheries Science 7: 29–34.
8 Mansour, O., M. Idris, and S. K. Das. 2020. Effect of different tpyes of commercial feed meal on the growth of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Lampan) fry. International Journal of Technology Management and Information System 2: 62–71.
9 Jena, J., P. Chandra Das, S. Mondal, and R. Das. 2007. Compatibility of silver barb Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) with Indian major carps in a grow-out polyculture. Aquaculture Research 38: 1061–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01768.x.
10 Sahu, P. K., J. Jena, and P. C. Das. 2021. Periphyton based grow-out farming of Indian major carps with Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) and Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) for better water quality and enhanced fish production. Aquaculture 533: 736118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736118.
11 Mahean Haque, S., M. A. Wahab, M. I. Wahid, and M. S. Haq. 1998. Impacts of Thai silver barb (Puntius gonionotus Bleeker) inclusion in the polyculture of carps. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research 2: 15–22.
12 Azim, M. E., M. A. Wahab, A. H. M. Kamal, and Z. F. Ahmed. 2004. Feeding Relations of Silver Barb Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) with Major Indian and Common Carp and Its Effect on Fish Production in a Polyculture System. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 35: 100–108.
13 Mohanta, K. N., S. N. Mohanty, J. Jena, and N. P. Sahu. 2008. Effect of three different oil cake-based diets on pond production performance of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker). Aquaculture Research 39: 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01974.x.
14 Rothuis, A J, L T Duong, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: feeding ecology and impact on rice and ricefield environment. Aquaculture Research 29: 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00255.x.
15 Vromant, N., C. Q. Nam, and F. Ollevier. 2002. Growth performance of Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) in intensively cultivated rice fields. Aquaculture 212: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00005-4.
16 Haroon, A. K. Y., and K. A. Pittman. 1997. Diel feeding pattern and ration of two sizes of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus Bleeker, in a nursery pond and ricefield. Aquaculture Research 28: 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1997.00890.x.
17 Chaudhary, S. N., M. K. Shrestha, D. K. Jha, and N. P. Pandit. 2008. Growth Performance of Silver Barb (Puntius gonionotus) in Mono and Polyculture Systems. Our Nature 6: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v6i1.1653.
18 Bhuiyan, A. S., M. K. Islam, and T. Zaman. 2006. Induced spawning of Puntius Gonionotus (Bleeker). Journal of Bio-Science 14: 121–125. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v14i0.455.
19 Epasinghege Don, E. D. M., A. M. A. N. Adikari, H. M. P. Kithsiri, V. Pahalawattarachchi, and T. A. D. W. Karunaratne. 2016. Induced breeding of Golden Tinfoil Barb (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) using ovaprim. Conference: NARA scientific sessions, proceedings, Healthies Aquatic Environment for the Economic Growth NSS2016.
20 Isa, M. M., A-S. Md-Shah, S.-A. Mohd-Sah, N. Baharudin, and M.-A. Abdul-Halim. 2012. Population Dynamics of Tinfoil Barb, Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker, 1853) in Pedu Reservoir, Kedah. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 2: 55–70.
21 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Tinfoil barb (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
22 Abdullah, A., R. Ramly, M. S. Mohammad Ridzwan, F. Sudirwan, A. Abas, K. Ahmad, M. Murni, and B. C. Kua. 2018. First detection of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) in wild river carp (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) at Timah Tasoh Lake, Malaysia. Journal of Fish Diseases 41: 1459–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12843.
23 Rothuis, A J, C Q Nam, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: fish production parameters. Aquaculture Research 29: 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00256.x.
24 Rahman, M. M., and A. Fathi. 2022. Influence of environmental factors on biology and catch composition of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii in a tropical lake, northern Malaysia: implications for conservation planning. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 13661–13674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16502-w.
25 Christensen, Mikkel S. 1992. Investigations on the Ecology and Fish Fauna of the Mahakam River in East Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 77: 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19920770405.
26 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
27 McAdam, D. S. O., N. R. Liley, and E. S. P. Tan. 1999. Comparison of Reproductive Indicators and Analysis of the Reproductive Seasonality of the Tinfoil Barb, Puntius schwanenfeldii, in the Perak River, Malaysia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007563914300.
28 Riehl, R., and H. A. Baensch. Aquarien Atlas, Band 1. 10th edition. Melle, Germany: Mergus Verlag GmBH.
29 Mansour, O., M. Idris, and S. K. Das. 2016. Effect of different types of commercial feed meal on the growth forms of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Lampam) in Chini Lake, Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceedings 1784: 060044. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4966882.
30 Nurfadillah, N., I. Hasri, M. R. Purnama, A. Damora, and S. Mellisa. 2021. The application of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) using floating net cages on Tilapia fish with native fish (Peres, Lemeduk, and Depik). Depik 10: 219–224. https://doi.org/10.13170/depik.10.3.22465.
31 Isa, M. M., C. S. Rawi, R. Rosla, S. A. M. Shah, and A. S. R. Shah. 2010. Length – weight Relationships of Freshwater Fish Species in Kerian River Basin and Pedu Lake. Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology 5: 1–8.
32 Gante, H. F., L. M. da Costa, J. Micael, and M. J. Alves. 2008. First record of Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Bleeker) in the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Fish Biology 72: 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01773.x.
33 Kottelat, M. 2001. Fishes of Laos. Colombo: WHT Publications (Pte).
34 Fabian. 2023. Tinfoil Barb Care: Complete Guide for Beginners. AquariumNexus.
35 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 Siaw-Yang, Y. 1988. Food resource utilization partitioning of fifteen fish species at Bukit Merah Reservoir, Malaysia. Hydrobiologia 157: 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006967.
40 Mills, D., and G. Vevers. 1989. The Tetra encyclopedia of freshwater tropical aquarium fishes. New Jersey, EUA: Tetra Press.
41 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO species identification field guide for fishery purposes. Rome: FAO.


contents
show all details
«