Common carp

Cyprinus carpio

Cyprinus carpio (Common carp)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Cypriniformes
        • Cyprinidae
          • Cyprinus carpio
Distribution
Distribution map: Cyprinus carpio (Common carp)

Information


Author: Maria Filipa Castanheira
Version: 2.0 (2021-12-21) - Revision 4 (2022-07-29)

Cite

Reviewers: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez, Jenny Volstorf
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Castanheira, Maria Filipa. 2022. Cyprinus carpio (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-06-03. Version 2.0 Revision 4. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Cyprinus carpio
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


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

FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



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  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?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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.

ADULTSWILD: no data found yet. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.




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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: for spawning depth  SPAWNERSFARM: 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  Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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 8FARM:  LARVAE.

ADULTSWILD:  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 11FARM:  LARVAE.




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?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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  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?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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: WILDno data found yetFARM: 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  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?

There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: FARM: no aggression reported in ponds 16. LAB: no aggression reported 18 17

ADULTS: FARM and LAB: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: FARM: 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?

There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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 19FARM:  Eggs and LARVAE.

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




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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by netting 20 21 and crowding 22 20 21.

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: 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 low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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  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 high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: 85% are sold alive, of the 15% processed in plants 26, the common methods are a) asphyxia (followed by evisceration 26 or percussive killing 27), b) percussive stunning (followed by evisceration 26 28, gill cut or destruction of the heart 28), and c) electrical stunning (followed by evisceration 26 28, gill cut or destruction of the heart 28). High-standard slaughter method: electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 28 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 27) were most effective. Further research needed for a specific protocol.




11  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 5 29 30, fully domesticated. The first records of aquaculture are from China about 2,500 years ago 6 14.




12  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 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


LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild
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
FINGERLINGS = fry with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a finger; for details Findings 10.1 Ontogentic development
ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
IND = individuals
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 29



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.
[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)106<556:WAOCCC>2.0.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, 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 1013: 1–37. 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.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy