Giant tiger prawn

Penaeus monodon

Penaeus monodon (Giant tiger prawn)
Taxonomy
    • Malacostraca
      • Decapoda
        • Penaeidae
          • Penaeus monodon
Distribution
Distribution map: Penaeus monodon (Giant tiger prawn)

Information


Author: João L. Saraiva
Version: 2.0 (2021-12-21)

Cite

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

Cite as: »Saraiva, João L.. 2021. Penaeus monodon (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-08-27. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Penaeus monodon
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

Penaeus monodon is one of the most cultivated crustaceans worldwide, with over 500,000 tonnes harvested every year, and the most important traded aquaculture commodity in Asia. Despite being reared for over a century and fairly well studied, many of its biological needs are disregarded in farming, such as spatial requirements and reproductive conditions. In fact, spawning techniques majorly include uni- or bilateral ablation of eyestalks, even though there is evidence that this species spawns without direct manipulation. Stress is also an issue that should be tackled, as poor farming conditions may cause stress and evoke high sensitivity to infections. A slaughter protocol should also be implemented, as stunning and slaughtering are normally performed by immersion in icewater.




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: WILD: planktonic 1 2 3. FARM: 2,000 L 4 5 cylindro-conical tanks (ca 1.4 m diameter) 4.

POST-LARVAE: WILD: no data found yetFARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds or tanks 6.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: extensive: >5 ha 6; semi-intensive: 1-5 ha 6; intensive: 0.1-1 ha 6.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: maturation tanks: 12-20 m2  (diameter ca 4-5 m [sic!]) 7 5; cages: 250 m(16 x 16 m [sic!]) 7; spawning tanks: 300-500 L for individual spawning, 5,000-8,000 L (up to 38,000 L 8) for collective spawning 9 5.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: BENTHIC 2 offshore 10 < 110 m 11 3 2. FARM: usually kept with the spawners until hatching 6 (although not recommended 5 SPAWNERS for details); hatchery tanks: 200-1,000 L 5.

LARVAEWILD: planktonic, PELAGIC 1 10 2 3. Shallow coastal, estuarine, mangrove, and lagoon areas 1 11 10 2 3 6. FARM: cylindro-conical tanks: 1.8 m 4.

POST-LARVAEWILD: no data found yetFARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds or tanks 6.

JUVENILES: WILD: BENTHIC 1 2 3. Shallow coastal, estuarine, mangrove, and lagoon areas 1 11 10 2 3 6. FARM: tanks: <1 m 12; ponds: 40-70 cm 12.

ADULTS: WILD: offshore 10, 50-110 m 5 6 10 11 3 2. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD:  ADULTS. FARM: maturation tanks: 0.6-1.3 m 13 7 14; cages: 4 m 7.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

AMPHIDROMOUS, EURYHALINE 2 10.

LARVAE: WILD: inshore migration as hatching and larval stages occur 15, to shallow coastal, estuarine, mangrove, and lagoon areas 1 11 10 2 3 6. FARM: salinity variation is sometimes used 12. Stressed by low salinity 16. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.  

POST-LARVAE: WILD: coastal brackish water areas 17 18 19 15 6. FARM: transferred to JUVENILES tanks 6.

JUVENILES: WILD:  POST-LARVAEFARM: often reared in 15-25‰ salinity with good physiological indicators 20 21. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTSWILD: offshore 10, 50-110 m depth 5 6 10 11 3 2. FARM:  JUVENILES 6.

SPAWNERS: WILD:  ADULTS. FARM: usually kept in seawater tanks in a dark room 6.




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 medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: spawn after the rainy season 2 10. Females mature at ca 47 mm, males at 37 mm 2. Only newly moulted females are able to spawn 22, who are courted by males 22. When successful, males deposit the spermatophores inside the thelycum 22 13. FARM: farmed individuals have lower mating success than wild ones 23. In ponds, females mature at 39 mm and males at 31 mm 13. Eyestalk ablation to induce female maturation  24 22 13 9 5 and improve male reproductive performance 14 is widely used, but reproduction can occur without this highly invasive procedure 9 14. Ablation can cause loss of quality and mortality of spawners 25LAB: less harmful yet still invasive serotonin injections stimulate female maturation 26




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: tanks: 50-150 IND/L 12 6 5. Aerators provide upwelling current for larvae circulation in the tank 12. Ponds: 100-150 IND/m12; cages: 5,000-10,000 IND/m12.

POST-LARVAEWILD: no data found yetFARM: up to 150 IND/m2 27 28.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: extensive: 0.2-2 IND/m2 29 6; semi-intensive: 2-20 IND/m2 29 6; intensive: 10-60 IND/m2 29 6. Not stressed by density ≤50 IND/m2 30.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 2-7 IND/m2 7 13; cages: 1 IND/m7.




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: cannibalistic with increasing density 31 5 6. Shelter reduces cannibalism 31.

POST-LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no signs of aggression 32, no aggression reported in literature.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: no aggression reported in literature.




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 medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAEWILDPELAGIC 1 10 2 3. FARM: shelter reduces cannibalism 31.

POST-LARVAEWILD: BENTHIC 19FARM: transferred to JUVENILES ponds and tanks 6.

JUVENILES: WILD: use structures as shelter 33. FARM: shelter and substrate increase growth and production 34. LAB: use substrate features for shelter and food 35.

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: 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?

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: for stress and salinity crit. 3.

POST-LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by sharp temperature increase (from 24 to 33 ºC), salinity decrease (from 31 to 15‰ salinity) 36 37 21, handling 38, ammonia >0.02 mg/L 39, air exposure 37, and low oxygen in water 30 37, but not by pH decrease from 8.3 to 5.9 30.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: stressed by transport, handling, crowding, hyperthermia 7.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs, LARVAE and POST-LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: runt-deformity syndrome occurs, caused by viral infection 40.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.




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 icewater 6. High-standard slaughter method: electrical stunning established as a humane stunning method in crabs and lobsters (110 volt, 2-5 amp electrical charge for 10 s) 41 42 43. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to P. monodon 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 44, 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: omnivorous 3 45. FARM: for JUVENILES and ADULTS fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 45 46 47No data found yet for LARVAEPOST-LARVAE and SPAWNERS.

* partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%




Glossary


LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild
FARM = setting in farm environment
POST-LARVAE = fully developed individuals, beginning of external sex differentiation; for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
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
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
AMPHIDROMOUS = migrating between fresh water and sea independent of spawning
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
IND = individuals
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 44



Bibliography


[1] Kemp, Stanley. 1915. Crustacea Decapoda. Fauna of the Chilka Lake. Mem. Indian Mus 5: 199–325.
[2] Motoh, Hiroshi. 1981. Studies on the fisheries biology of the giant tiger prawn, Penaeus monodon in the Philippines. Technical Report. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[3] Mohamed, K. H. 1967. Synopsis of biological data on the jumbo tiger prawn Penaeus monodon Fabricius 1798. In Species synopsis, 3:1–15. Ciudad de Mexico: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[4] Platon, Rolando R. 1978. Design, operation and economics of a small-scale hatchery for the larval rearing of sugpo, Penaeus monodon Fab. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[5] FAO. 2007. Improving Penaeus monodon hatchery practices. Manual based on experience in India. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 446. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the  United Nations.
[6] Kongkeo, H. 2005. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Penaeus monodon. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[7] Primavera, Jurgenne H. 1989. Broodstock of sugpo (Penaeus monodon Fabricius). Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[8] Menasveta, Piamsak, Somkiat Piyatiratitivorakul, Sompop Rungsupa, Nudol Moree, and Arlo W. Fast. 1993. Gonadal maturation and reproductive performance of giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon Fabricius) from the Andaman Sea and pond-reared sources in Thailand. Aquaculture 116: 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90008-M.
[9] Emmerson, W. D. 1983. Maturation and growth of ablated and unablated Penaeus monodon Fabricius. Aquaculture 32: 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(83)90221-1.
[10] Solis, Noel B. 1988. Biology and ecology. In Biology and culture of Penaeus monodon, 3–36. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[11] Racek, A. A. 1955. Littoral Penaeinae from New South Wales and Adjacent Queensland Waters. Marine and Freshwater Research 6: 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf9550209.
[12] Licop, Ma Suzette R. 1988. Hatchery operations and management. In Biology and culture of Penaeus monodon, 59–88. Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC.
[13] Primavera, J. Honculada. 1988. Maturation, reproduction, and broodstock technology. In Biology and culture of Penaeus monodon, 37–57. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC/AQD).
[14] Gomes, Luiz A. O., and J. Honculada-Primavera. 1993. Reproductive quality of male Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 112: 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90441-Z.
[15] Bailey-Brock, J.H., and S. M. Moss. 1992. Penaeid taxonomy, biology and zoogeography. In Marine shrimp culture: Principles and practices, 9–27. Elsevier.
[16] Paibulkichakul, Chalee, Somkiat Piyatiratitivorakul, Prasat Kittakoop, Voranop Viyakarn, Arlo W Fast, and Piamsak Menasveta. 1998. Optimal dietary levels of lecithin and cholesterol for black tiger prawn Penaeus monodon larvae and postlarvae. Aquaculture 167: 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00327-5.
[17] Gunter, Gordon, J. Y. Christmas, and Rosamond Killebrew. 1964. Some Relations of Salinity to Population Distributions of Motile Estuarine Organisms, with Special Reference to Penaeid Shrimp. Ecology 45: 181–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937124.
[18] Rothlisberg, Peter C., John A. Church, and Andrew M. G. Forbes. 1983. Modelling the advection of vertically migrating shrimp larvae. Journal of Marine Research 41: 511–538. https://doi.org/10.1357/002224083788519759.
[19] Dall, WHBJ, BJ Hill, PC Rothlisberg, DJ Sharples, and others. 1990. The biology of the Penaeidae. Advances in marine biology 27.
[20] Chen, Hon-Cheng. 1985. Water quality criteria for farming the grass shrimp, Penaeus monodon.
[21] Ye, Le, Shigui Jiang, Xiaoming Zhu, Qibing Yang, Weigeng Wen, and Kaichang Wu. 2009. Effects of salinity on growth and energy budget of juvenile Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 290: 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.01.028.
[22] Primavera, Jurgenne H. 1979. Notes on the Courtship and Mating Behavior in Penaeus monodon Fabricius (Decapoda, Natantia). Crustaceana 37: 287–292.
[23] Marsden, Gay, Neil Richardson, Peter Mather, and Wayne Knibb. 2013. Reproductive behavioural differences between wild-caught and pond-reared Penaeus monodon prawn broodstock. Aquaculture 402: 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.03.019.
[24] Primavera, J. H. 1978. Induced maturation and spawning in five-month-old Penaeus monodon Fabricius by eyestalk ablation. Aquaculture 13: 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(78)90184-9.
[25] Benzie, J. A. H. 1998. Penaeid genetics and biotechnology. Aquaculture 164: 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00175-6.
[26] Wongprasert, Kanokpan, Somluk Asuvapongpatana, Pisit Poltana, Montip Tiensuwan, and Boonsirm Withyachumnarnkul. 2006. Serotonin stimulates ovarian maturation and spawning in the black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 261: 1447–1454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.08.044.
[27] Fast, Arlo W. 1992. Penaeid ultra-sensitive growout systems. In Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier.
[28] Sturmer, Leslie, Samocha, T, and A. L. Lawrence. 1992. Intensification of penaeid nursery systems. In Marine Shrimp Culture: Principles and Practices. Elsevier.
[29] Apud, Florentino D. 1988. Prawn grow-out practices in the Philippines. In Biology and culture of Penaeus monodon, 89–118. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC/AQD).
[30] Hall, M. R., and E. H. van Ham. 1998. The Effects of Different Types of Stress on Blood Glucose in the Giant Tiger Prawn Penaeus monodon. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 29: 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1998.tb00649.x.
[31] Abdussamad, E. M., and D. M. Thampy. 1994. Cannibalism in the tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon Fabricius in nursery rearing phase. Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics 9: 67–75.
[32] Forster, J. R. M., and T. W. Beard. 1974. Experiments to assess the suitability of nine species of prawns for intensive cultivation. Aquaculture 3: 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(74)90002-7.
[33] Primavera, J. H. 1997. Fish predation on mangrove-associated penaeids. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 215: 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00046-4.
[34] Arnold, Stuart J., Frank E. Coman, Chris J. Jackson, and Sarah A. Groves. 2009. High-intensity, zero water-exchange production of juvenile tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon: An evaluation of artificial substrates and stocking density. Aquaculture 293: 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.03.049.
[35] Primavera, J., and R. Q. Gacutan. 1989. Preliminary results of feeding aquatic macrophytes to Penaeus monodon juveniles. Aquaculture 80: 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(89)90284-6.
[36] Cimino, Elisabeth J., Leigh Owens, Erin Bromage, and Trevor A. Anderson. 2002. A newly developed ELISA showing the effect of environmental stress on levels of hsp86 in Cherax quadricarinatus and Penaeus monodon. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 132: 591–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00101-0.
[37] Vega, Enrique de la, Michael R. Hall, Kate J. Wilson, Antonio Reverter, Rick G. Woods, and Bernard M. Degnan. 2007. Stress-induced gene expression profiling in the black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon. Physiological Genomics 31: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.00068.2007.
[38] Vega, Enrique de la, Bernard M. Degnan, Michael R. Hall, Jeff A. Cowley, and Kate J. Wilson. 2004. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR demonstrates that handling stress can lead to rapid increases of gill-associated virus (GAV) infection levels in Penaeus monodon. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 59: 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao059195.
[39] Pan, Chih-Hung, Yew-Hu Chien, and Brian Hunter. 2003. The resistance to ammonia stress of Penaeus monodon Fabricius juvenile fed diets supplemented with astaxanthin. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 297: 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.07.002.
[40] Primavera, J. Honculada, and Emilia T. Quinitio. 2000. Runt-deformity syndrome in cultured giant tiger prawn penaeus monodon. Journal of Crustacean Biology 20: 796–802. https://doi.org/10.1651/0278-0372(2000)020[0796:RDSICG]2.0.CO;2.
[41] Sparrey, Julian. 2005. Testing of Crustastun single crab and lobster stunner. Unpublished research report. UK.
[42] Neil, Douglas. 2010. The effect of the CrustastunTM on nerve activity in crabs and lobsters. Scientific Report to Studham Technologies Ltd. UK: University of Glasgow.
[43] Roth, B, and S Øines. 2010. Stunning and killing of edible crabs (Cancer pagurus). Animal Welfare 19: 287–294.
[44] 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.
[45] Smith, DM, GL Allan, KC Williams, and CG Barlow. 2000. Fishmeal replacement research for shrimp feed in Australia. Avances en Nutrición Acuícola V. Memorias del V Simposium Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola 19: 22.
[46] Paripatananont, T, M Boonyaratpalin, P Pengseng, and P Chotipuntu. 2001. Substitution of soy protein concentrate for fishmeal in diets of tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture Research 32: 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1355-557x.2001.00045.x.
[47] Bautista-Teruel, Myrna N, Perla S Eusebio, and Timothy P Welsh. 2003. Utilization of feed pea, Pisum sativum, meal as a protein source in practical diets for juvenile tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 225. Proceedings Of The 10th International Symposium On Nutrition And Feeding In Fish (Feeding For Quality).: 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00284-9.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy