Red Porgy

Pagrus pagrus

Pagrus pagrus (Red Porgy)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Perciformes
        • Sparidae
          • Pagrus pagrus
Distribution
Distribution map: Pagrus pagrus (Red Porgy)

Information


Author: João L. Saraiva
Version: 2.0 (2021-12-22) - Revision 1 (2022-07-20)

Cite

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

Cite as: »Saraiva, João L.. 2022. Pagrus pagrus (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2018-07-11. Version 2.0 Revision 1. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Pagrus pagrus
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

Pagrus pagrus is a relatively new marine species for aquaculture. Its high market value and declining wild stocks worldwide prompted the interest of the aquaculture industry. The general rearing systems rely on technology developed for the related sparid Gilthead seabream as well as Seabass. However, some aspects of its biology in the wild and under farming conditions remain poorly understood, namely aggregation patterns and aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, it is a very sensitive species that presents very high mortality and malformation rates, and some attributes of its life history cannot be fully met in aquaculture, such as home and depth ranges. Standard slaughter procedures are also sub-optimal, despite the fact that there are humane methods developed for related 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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: planktonic (Raventos 2001). FARM: cylindrical tanks 15 m3 1 or similar conditions to Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata 2 3: square tanks 1-10 m2, cylindrical tanks 3-6 m diameter ( short profiles Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata). 

JUVENILES: WILD: relative site fidelity, average movement of 6 km 4. FARM: similar to Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata 2 3: round tanks: 3-6 m diameter, raceways: 50-280 m2, ponds: 1000-10,000 m2, cages: 10-700 m2 ( short profiles Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata). 

ADULTS: WILD: short term movements up to 9 km, home range: 50 ha 5. FARM  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD Adults. FARM: rectangular tanks 30 m3 1 or similar similar conditions to Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata 2 3: cylindrical tanks: 4 m diameter, rectangular tanks: 16 x 16 m ( short profiles Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata). 




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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: pelagic 6. FARM: cylindrical tanks 15 m3 1 or similar conditions to Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata 2 3: tanks: 1-2 m ( short profiles Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata). 

JUVENILES: WILD: 9-280 m, with younger individuals inshore at 20-50 m 7 8. FARM: similar to Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata 2 3: tanks, raceways and ponds: 1-2 m, sea cages: 15-30 m ( short profiles Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata). LAB: submerged sea cages 55 m. 

ADULTSWILD: 9-280 m, with older individuals more offshore  7 8FARM:  Juveniles

SPAWNERS: WILD: 21-100 m 7. FARM: cylindrical tanks: 1.8-2.1 m 6




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?

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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

OCEANODROMOUS 9 7, EURYHALINE  10.

LARVAEWILD: pelagic 6. FARM:   criteria 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: stay inshore in shallower depths, migrate to deeper habitats in later stages 9 7FARM: skin sensitive to light, but regulation of rearing conditions 11 and specific feed supplementation 12 reduces effect. Stressed by 15 °C and 25 °C 13. For tank and cage dimensions   criteria 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD: stay in deeper habitats 7 9 . FARM:   JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD Adults. FARM: for cage dimensions and position   criteria 1 and 2.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: protogynous hermaphrodites 14. Winter spawner, at tempertaures ca 18º C and from 20-78m 15. FARM: spontaneous reproduction occurs 1 16 6. LAB: In sex-ratios ranging from 1:4 to 1:1 (males:females), spawning peaks in the morning with presumable a male closely following a presumable female for a few seconds at a time. The latter eventually accelerates rapidly in a straight line near the surface. At this point other presumable sattelite males join in the pursuit, chasing each other away. Eggs probably reseased at this time 15.



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: 66-100 ind/L 1 17
JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: initial densities: 12-15 kg/m3 18. Chronic stress response to densities of 20 kg/m3 19, but can be considerably reduced in brighter tank colours 20 21, in which condition there are no signs of chronic stress in densities up to 25 kg/m3 13
ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM Juveniles.
SPAWNERS: WILD: no evidence for spawning aggregations 5 15. FARM: 4.5 kg/m3 22.



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 and 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 data found yet.

ADULTS: FARM: no data found yet

SPAWNERS: FARM: no data found yet. LAB: males may chase competitors 15.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: pelagic 6. FARM: cylindrical, cylindro-conical or rectangular tanks 1 2 3.

JUVENILES: WILD: associated with rocky, gravel or sandy substrate or Posidonia beds 7 4 15 9. FARM: similar to Sea bass and Sea bream 2 3: tanks, earthen ponds, raceways and sea cages ( short profiles Sea bass, Sea bream).

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD Juveniles. FARM: barren tanks 22.

 




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: acute stress response to chasing, capture, netting, and air exposure 13. Anaesthesia with phenoxyethanol is effective in reducing stress 13. For stress and a) light and temperature crit. 3, b) stocking density crit. 5.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

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: intensive conditions: mortality < 95%  23, malformations < 45% 24;  semi-intensive conditions: mortality < 78% 23, malformations < 38% 24. Main malformations: skeletal development, reduced in 50% with fatty acid supplementation 24.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: 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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: immersion in ice slurry 25. High-standard slaughter method: for Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata, other popular Mediterranean aquaculture species, electrical stunning and placement in icewater is most effective 26 27. Further research needed to determine whether these apply to P. pagrus as well.




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 4 28, level 5 being fully domesticated.




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: carnivorous 8. FARM: no data found yet.




Glossary


LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, 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
ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
OCEANODROMOUS = living and migrating in the sea
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 28



Bibliography


[1] Kolios, Panos, Savas Kiritsis, and Nikos Katribusas. 1997. Larval-rearing and growout of the red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) in the Riopesca hatchery (Greece). In Live Food in Aquaculture, ed. A. Hagiwara, T. W. Snell, E. Lubzens, and C. S. Tamaru, 321–325. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2097-7_52.
[2] Kentouri, M, N Papandroulakis, and P Divanach. 1995. Culture of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, in Crete. Present knowledge, problems and perspectives.
[3] Helenic Fishfarming. 2018. Facilities | Hellenic Fishfarming S.A. http://www.helfish.gr/en/company/facilities/. Accessed June 22.
[4] Grimes, Churchill B, Charles S Manooch, and Gene R Huntsman. 1982. Reef and Rock Outcropping Fishes of the Outer Continental Shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and Ecological Notes on the Red Porgy and Vermilion Snapper: 13.
[5] Afonso, Pedro, Jorge Fontes, Rui Guedes, Fernando Tempera, Kim N. Holland, and Ricardo S. Santos. 2009. A Multi-Scale Study of Red Porgy Movements and Habitat Use, and Its Application to the Design of Marine Reserve Networks. In Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices, ed. Jennifer L. Nielsen, Haritz Arrizabalaga, Nuno Fragoso, Alistair Hobday, Molly Lutcavage, and John Sibert, 9:423–443. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9640-2_25.
[6] Mihelakakis, Apostolos, Takao Yoshimatsu, and Christos Tsolkas. 2001. Spawning in captivity and early life history of cultured red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 199: 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00560-9.
[7] Hassler, William W., and Charles S. Manooch. 1978. Synopsis of biological data on the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus). FAO Fisheries Synopsis 116. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.63258.
[8] Labropoulou, Mary, Athanasios Machias, and Nikolaos Tsimenides. 1999. Habitat selection and diet of juvenile red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758). Fishery Bulletin: 13.
[9] Afonso, Pedro, Fernando Tempera, and Gui Menezes. 2008. Population structure and habitat preferences of red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) in the Azores, central north Atlantic. Fisheries Research 93: 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.06.009.
[10] Vargas‐Chacoff, Luis, África Calvo, Ignacio Ruiz‐Jarabo, Francisco Villarroel, José Luis Muñoz, Ana Belén Tinoco, Salvador Cárdenas, and Juan Miguel Mancera. 2015. Growth performance, osmoregulatory and metabolic modifications in red porgy fry, Pagrus pagrus, under different environmental salinities and stocking densities. Aquaculture Research 42: 1269–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02715.x.
[11] Pavlidis, Michalis, Maria Karkana, Eleftheria Fanouraki, and Nikos Papandroulakis. 2008. Environmental control of skin colour in the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture Research 39: 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01937.x.
[12] Kalinowski, C. T., L. E. Robaina, and M. S. Izquierdo. 2011. Effect of dietary astaxanthin on the growth performance, lipid composition and post-mortem skin colouration of red porgy Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture International 19: 811–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-010-9401-0.
[13] Fanouraki, E., P. Divanach, and M. Pavlidis. 2007. Baseline values for acute and chronic stress indicators in sexually immature red porgy (Pagrus pagrus). Aquaculture 265: 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.01.006.
[14] Hood, Peter B, and Andrea K Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 98: 723–723.
[15] Devries, Douglas Alan. 2006. Life History, Reproductive Ecology, and Demography of the Red Porgy, Pagrus Pagrus, in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
[16] Papandroulakis, Nikos, Maroudio Kentouri, and Pascal Divanach. 2004. Biological Performance of Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus) Larvae under Intensive Rearing Conditions with the use of an Automated Feeding System. Aquaculture International 12: 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AQUI.0000032080.59789.5f.
[17] Hernández-Cruz, C. M, M Salhi, M Bessonart, M. S Izquierdo, M. M González, and H Fernández-Palacios. 1999. Rearing techniques for red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) during larval development. Aquaculture 179: 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00182-9.
[18] Pavlidis, M., E. Karantzali, E. Fanouraki, C. Barsakis, S. Kollias, and N. Papandroulakis. 2011. Onset of the primary stress in European sea bass Dicentrarhus labrax, as indicated by whole body cortisol in relation to glucocorticoid receptor during early development. Aquaculture 315: 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.09.013.
[19] Rotllant, J, M Pavlidis, MEAM Kentouri, ME Abad, and L Tort. 1997. Non-specific immune responses in the red porgy Pagrus pagrus after crowding stress. Aquaculture 156: 279–290.
[20] Rotllant, J., L. Tort, D. Montero, M. Pavlidis, M. Martinez, S.E. Wendelaar Bonga, and P.H.M. Balm. 2003. Background colour influence on the stress response in cultured red porgy Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 223: 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00157-1.
[21] Van der Salm, A.L., M. Martínez, G. Flik, and S.E. Wendelaar Bonga. 2004. Effects of husbandry conditions on the skin colour and stress response of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Aquaculture 241: 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.08.038.
[22] Büke, Ergun, Zafer Akpınar, Bülent Ayekin, and Hakkı Dereli. 2015. Spawning Performance and Larval Rearing of Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus L., 1758) Under Culture Conditions. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 22: 303–309.
[23] Roo, Francisco Javier, Carmen María Hernández-Cruz, Juan Antonio Socorro, Hipólito Fernández-Palacios, and María Soledad Izquierdo. 2010. Advances in rearing techniques of Pagrus pagrus, (Linnaeus, 1758): comparison between intensive and semi-intensive larval rearing systems. Aquaculture Research 41: 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02244.x.
[24] Izquierdo, M. S., J. Socorro, and J. Roo. 2010. Studies on the appearance of skeletal anomalies in red porgy: effect of culture intensiveness, feeding habits and nutritional quality of live preys. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26: 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01429.x.
[25] Vardanis, George, Liliana Sfichi-Duke, Lluis Tort, Pascal Divanach, Kiriakos Kotzabasis, and Michail Pavlidis. 2011. The use of biochemical, sensorial and chromaticity attributes as indicators of postmortem changes in commercial-size, cultured red porgy Pagrus pagrus, stored on ice: Freshness indicators in red porgy. Aquaculture Research 42: 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02628.x.
[26] Van De Vis, Hans, Steve Kestin, David Robb, Jörg Oehlenschläger, Bert Lambooij, Werner Münkner, Holmer Kuhlmann, et al. 2003. Is humane slaughter of fish possible for industry? Aquaculture Research 34: 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00804.x.
[27] Lines, J.A., and J. Spence. 2014. Humane harvesting and slaughter of farmed fish. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 33: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2284.
[28] 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.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy