Information
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-03-25)
WelfareScore | farm
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)
General remarks
Lutjanus johnii is a snapper species native to the Indo-West Pacific. It inhabits estuaries from the Fiji Islands to East Africa and from Australia to Ryukyu Islands. However, two different species with the same morphology might be considered to be L. johnii, one of them inhabiting the Straits of Malaca, Thailand, Australia, and China, and the other one living also in China as well as in India. It is cultured in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and Pakistan and valued for recreational fishing in both Australia and Malaysia, where it is overfished and vulnerable to climate change. In the wild, L. johnii can live up to at least 28 years. In farms, juveniles attain market size (600-800 g) in 6-8 months, so they do not reach adulthood unless they are kept as broodstock. Natural spawning in captivity has not been achieved. Spawning after artificial manipulation is possible, but many farms still obtain fingerlings from natural catches locally or more usually imported. Collection of spawners in the wild is not recommended because L. johnii is highly susceptible to barotrauma when caught from depths greater than 10-15 metres. Field data on L. johnii are currently insufficient and should be augmented by inshore surveys and observation of natural behaviours in its habitat. Further research on reproduction is needed to ensure a closed life cycle and to avoid the decimation of the natural populations. Improvements in the farming conditions are needed in order to accommodate the migration needs of juveniles, and adding environmental enrichment into cages will certainly improve their welfare. L. johnii's welfare can also be improved by using farming systems that promote a natural habitat and behaviour of the species as well as by developing humane stunning and slaughtering methods.
Note: The age class "Adults" in this profile refers to a) large juveniles or adults in the wild (due to imprecision in the maturity stage in the references) and b) large juveniles in farms (due to farmers considering individuals as adults based on their size instead of their maturity status).
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 low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.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. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.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. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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, turbidity).
What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.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 medium amount of evidence.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?
There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.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 and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 2 34, 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: carnivorous 11 2 5 15. FARM: no data found yet.
Glossary
AMPHIDROMOUS = migrating between fresh water and sea independent of spawning
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 34
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; 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
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
TOTAL LENGTH = from snout to tip of caudal fin as compared to fork length (which measures from snout to fork of caudal fin) 21 or standard length (from head to base of tail fin) or body length (from the base of the eye notch to the posterior end of the telson)
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Chao, T. M., and R. Chou. 1999. Grouper culture and a review of the grouper breeding programme in Singapore. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Aquaculture of Coral Fishes and Sustainable Reef Fisheries, 97–105. Kota Kinabalu, Saba, 6-10 December, 1996.
3 CMFRI. 2020. Success in captive spawning and seed production of John’s snapper (Lutjanus johnii) at Visakhapatnam Regional Centre of ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute.
4 Liang, Kok Seng, and Tak Seng Leong. 1992. Treatment of cultured golden snapper, Lutjanus johni Bloch, infected with monogeneans. Aquaculture 106: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(92)90244-F.
5 Hussain, S. Makhdoom, and Zakia Khatoon. 2000. Preliminary sudies on cage culture of Lutjanus johni (snapper) and Pomadasys kaakan (grunt) marine fishes. Pakistan J. Zool. 32: 85–91. https://doi.org/0030-9923/2000/0001-0085.
6 Cheong, Leslie. 1988. Aquaculture development in Singapore. In Perspectives in Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia and Japan, ed. J. V. Juario and L. V. Benitez, 36–43. Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines: SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department.
7 Abbas, Ghulam, Baradi Waryani, Abdul Ghaffar, Abdur Rahim, Muhammad Hafeez-ur-Rehman, and Muhammad Aslam. 2015. Effect of ration size and feeding frequency on growth, feed utilization, body composition and some haematological characteristics of juvenile snapper, Lutjanus johnii (Baloch, 1792). Pakistan J. Zool. 47: 719–730. https://doi.org/0030-9923/2015/0003-0719.
8 Senthil Murugan, T., D. Divu, K. Srinivasa Rao, and K. K. Philipose. 2016. Broodstock development and induced spawning of the John’s snapper Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792) under controlled conditions. Indian Journal of Fisheries 63: 117–119.
9 Grubert, M. A, T. (Thor) Saunders, Julie M Martin, H.S Lee, and Carl J Walters. 2013. Stock assessments of selected Northern Territory fishes. Fishery Report 110. Australia: Northern Territory Government.
10 Welch, David J, Thor Saunders, Julia Robins, Alastair Harry, Johanna Johnson, Jeffrey Maynard, Richard Saunders, Greta Pecl, Bill Sawynok, and Andrew Tobin. 2014. Implications of climate change impacts on fisheries resources of northern Australia. Part 1: Vulnerability assessment and adaptation options. 2010/565. Australia: Australian Government, Department of Climate and Energy Efficiency.
11 Allen, G. R. 1985. Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792). In FAO species catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of the World., 6:94–95. 125. Rome.
12 Williams, David McBeath, and Garry R. Russ. 1994. Review of data on fishes of commercial and recreational fishing interest in the Great Barrier Reef Vol. 1. Report. Townsville, Queensland: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
13 Hay, T., I. Knuckey, C. Calogeras, and C. Errity. 2005. Population and biology of the golden snapper. NT Coastal Reef Fish 21. Fishnote. Australia: Northern Territory Government.
14 Masood, Zubia, and Rehana Yasmeen Farooq. 2011. Morphology and early life history pattern of some Lutjanus species: a review. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology 8: 455–461.
15 Kiso, Katsuhiro, and Mohammad-Isa Mahyam. 2003. Distribution and feeding habits of juvenile and young John´s snapper Lutjanus johnii in the Matang mangrove estuary, west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Fisheries Science 69: 563–568. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-2906.2003.00657.x.
16 Tanaka, Katsuhisa, Yukio Hanamura, Ving Ching Chong, Satoshi Watanabe, Alias Man, Faizul Mohd Kassim, Masashi Kodama, and Tadafumi Ichikawa. 2011. Stable isotope analysis reveals ontogenetic migration and the importance of a large mangrove estuary as a feeding ground for juvenile John’s snapper Lutjanus johnii. Fisheries Science 77: 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-011-0396-x.
17 Murugan, A., K. Vinod, K. R. Saravanan, T. Anbalagan, R. Saravanan, S. V. Sanaye, S. K. Mojjada, S. Rajagopal, and T. Balasubramanian. 2014. Diversity, occurrence and socio-economic aspects of snappers and job fish (Family: Lutjanidae) fisheries from Gulf of Mannar region, south-east coast of India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43: 618–633.
18 Sadighzadeh, Z., T. Valinassab, G. Vosugi, A.A. Motallebi, M.R. Fatemi, A. Lombarte, and V.M. Tuset. 2014. Use of otolith shape for stock identification of John´s snapper, Lutjanus johnii (Pisces: Lutjanidae), from the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea. Fisheries Research 155: 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.02.024.
19 Sundaram, Sujit, Punam Khandagale, and Vaibhav Mhatre. 2011. Heavy landings of snappers at Mumbai with notes on the biology of Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal, 1975) and Lutjanus johnii (Bloch,1792). Marine Fisheries Information Sercive T&E Ser 209.
20 Newman, Stephen J., and David McB Williams. 1996. Variation in reef associated assemblages of the Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae at different distances offshore in the central Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005214.
21 Pawson, M.G., and G.D. Pickett. 1996. The Annual Pattern of Condition and Maturity in Bass, Dicentrarchus Labrax, in Waters Around England and Wales. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76: 107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400029040.
22 Mat Ali, H., and A. Ali. 1994. Aquaculture of Coral Reef Fishes in Peninsular Malaysia.
23 Stuart-Smith, R.D., G. J. Edgar, I. V. Green, and I. V. Shaw. 2015. Lutjanus johnii. Reef Life Survey.
24 Kamalei, E. 2001. The reproductive study of golden snapper (Lutjanus johnii) in Hormozgan waters. Iranian Scientific Fisheries Journal 10: 73–90.
25 Schipp, G. R., and C. J. Pitney. 1995. Preliminary investigations into the larval rearing of golden snapper, Lutjanus johnii Bloch. Larvi ’95 - Fish and Shellfish Larviculture Symposium (ed. by P. Lavens, E. Jaspers & I. Roelants). European Aquaculture Society, Special Publications.
26 Emata, Arnil C. 2003. Reproductive performance in induced and spontaneous spawning of the mangrove red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus: a potential candidate species for sustainable aquaculture. Aquaculture Research 34: 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00892.x.
27 Hocking, Nick. 2014. Bream, Fingermark. Fish-On with Nick Hocking.
28 Cappo, Mike, Ross J. Marriott, and Stephen J. Newman. 2013. James´s rule and causes and consequences of a latitudinal cline in the demography of John´s Snapper (Lutjanus johnii) in coastal waters of Australia. Fishery Bulletin 111: 309–324. https://doi.org/10.7755/FB.111.4.2.
29 Sanaye, Sushant Vilas. 2013. Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792). India Biodiversity Portal, Species Page: Lutjanus johnii.
30 Northern Territory Government. 2014. Golden Snapper (Lutjanus johnii). Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries - Recreational Fishing.
31 Northern Territory Government. 2018. Status of key northern territory fish stocks report 2016. Fishery Report No. 119. Australia: Northern Territory Government, Department of Primary Industry and Resources.
32 Humane Slaughter Association. 2018. Humane slaughter of finfish farmed around the world. Humane Slaughter Association.
33 Bowan, Jennifer, and Albin Gräns. 2019. Stunning and Killing of Tropical and Subtropical Finfish in Aquaculture during Slaughter.
34 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.
