Arctic char

Salvelinus alpinus alpinus

Salvelinus alpinus alpinus (Arctic char)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Salmoniformes
        • Salmonidae
          • Salvelinus alpinus alpinus
Distribution
Distribution map: Salvelinus alpinus alpinus (Arctic char)

Information


Author: João L. Saraiva
Version: 2.0 (2020-12-01) - Revision 2 (2022-07-20)

Cite

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

Cite as: »Saraiva, João L.. 2022. Salvelinus alpinus alpinus (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-03-03. Version 2.0 Revision 2. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Salvelinus alpinus alpinus
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

Salvelinus alpinus alpinus is a highly plastic and very resilient freshwater fish. It is thus appealing for farming, but there are several issues in welfare that need improvement as well as many aspects of its biology that remain understudied. Despite its plasticity, spatial needs in farming systems are not met. Stationary morphs should be more suitable for farming. Spawning induction is highly invasive and the rearing environment should be improved, and proper attention should be given to its feeding needs (it is sually reared on diets formulated for either rainbow trout or Atlantic salmon) and fish sources should be replaced with sustainable sources. Stress responses to common farming practices are not known, and a humane stunning and slaughter protocol needs to be established. 




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 high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

ALEVINSWILD: BENTHIC 1: restricted to bottom substrate. FARM: hatchery circular tanks: 1.5-3.7 m x 1.0 m depth, fingerling circular tanks: 2.0-4.6 m x 1.0 m depth 2

FRY ALEVINS.

JUVENILES: WILD: usually 2-7 km 3, up to 25 km, max 940 km 4-5. High intra-specific variation and plasticity 6 5. FARM: grow-out circular tanks: 127 m3 (9 m diameter x 2 m height) to 156 m3 (9.1 m diameter x 2.4 m height) 2.

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: usually 2-7 km 3, up to 25 km, max 940 km 4-5. High intra-specific variation and plasticity 6 5.  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 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

Eggs: WILD: littoral zone at 0-0.5 m depth 1. FARM: hatchery circular tanks: 1.0 m depth 2.

ALEVINS and FRY Eggs. 

FRY Eggs. 

JUVENILES: WILD: usually 0-20 m, but some morphs prefer 70-72 m 1. FARM: grow-out systems: 2-2.4 m depth 2.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: spawn from 0-50 m 7. 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

ALEVINS: WILD: stationary in cold rivers and lakes 8 9 7 10FARM: circular tanks 2. For details on rearing systems  crit. 1 and 2.

FRY ALEVINS

JUVENILES: WILD: some morphs are anadromous 11, others are stationary in fresh water 12. Anadromous morphs migrate yearly to littoral zones in spring 8 9 10FARM: grow-out tanks 2. For details on rearing systems  crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES

SPAWNERS: WILD: Some stationary 12, some anadromous 11. Spawn in fresh water 1FARMno 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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: spawning in summer and autumn 10 1. Form spawning aggregations with male-biased sex ratio  10 1. Female builds nest, male courts female 1. FARM: temperature manipulation to induce ovulation 2; ripe females are stripped of eggs, milt is collected from males, both under anaesthesia 2.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

ALEVINS: WILD: 4.7 ind/m2 1. FARM: densities of up to 70 ind/L do not seem to affect growth or mortality 13. Highly plastic species 5.

FRY ALEVINS.

JUVENILES: WILD: schooling 14 15. FARM: density of 2.2 ind/L increases growth, whereas 0.3 ind/L hinders growth and increase mortality 16. Form schools and tolerate high densities of at least 120 kg/m2. Highly plastic species 5.

ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES

SPAWNERS: WILD: spawning aggregations of unknown size 10 1. FARM: lower density than on-growing tanks (pers. obs).




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

ALEVINS: WILD: cannibalistic 5. FARM: cannibalistic 17. LAB: cannibalistic 18.

FRY ALEVINS

JUVENILES: WILD: aggressive and territorial 6.  FARM: high densities in farms of 300 ind/tank reduce aggression 19LAB: aggressive and territorial 20, establish dominance hierarchies in groups of 3 20.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES

SPAWNERSWILD: Males aggressively guard females 1. FARMno 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. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: BENTHIC 1. FARM: hatched in shallow throughs or concrete tanks (pers. obs)

ALEVINSWILD: immediately seek shelter in the substrate upon hatching 2FARM: Ponds usually have stones, pebbles and gravel as substrate (pers. obs)

JUVENILES: WILD: usually BENTHIC, but can shift to pelagic (independent of bottom substrate) depending on feed abundance 21FARM: Ponds usually have stones, pebbles and gravel as substrate (pers. obs).

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: spawn in substrate 1FARM: maturation ponds usually have stones, pebbles and gravel as substrate (pers. obs).




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

ALEVINS: no data found yet.

FRYno data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by handling, but habituated to repeated handling 22. Further research needed on other common stressors.

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?

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

ALEVINS: frequency of malformations <2% 23 24 25. Overall malformation rate lower than other species such as Rainbow trout >10%  26, Atlantic salmon >17% 27 28 28 29 , Pikeperch >10%  30 31 32 33, Sea bass ca 30% 34 35 36 37.

FRY ALEVINS

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTSno 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: for the related O. kisutch, anaesthesia with high CO2 or iced water 38, then bled by cutting gill arches and immersing in iced water 38 39. High-standard slaughter method: indications that electrical stunning after 30 s DC 9.6 V/cm at 1,000 Hz is most effective 40. Further research needed to confirm for farming conditions.




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 41, fully domesticated. Selective breeding programme since 1982 2.




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 1 42 43 44. FARM: for JUVENILES, fish oil may be completely* replaced by plant material 45 46

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




Glossary


ALEVINS = larvae until the end of yolk sac absorption, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, 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
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 41



Bibliography


[1] Sandlund, Odd Terje, Karl Gunnarsson, Pétur M. Jónasson, Bror Jonsson, Torfinn Lindem, Kristinn P. Magnússon, Hilmar J. Malmquist, et al. 1992. The Arctic Charr Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn. Oikos 64: 305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545056.
[2] Branas, Eva, Stefan Larsson, B.-S. Saether, Sten Ivar Siikavuopio, Helgi Thorarensen, Olafur Sigurgeirsson, and Henrik Jeuthe. 2011. Arctic charr farming Production of juveniles; a manual. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and  Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
[3] Svenning, MA, and P Grotnes. 1991. Stationarity and homing ability of landlocked arctic charr. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research: 36–43.
[4] Jensen, K. W., and M. Berg. 1977. Growth, mortality and migrations of the anadromous char, Salvelinus alpinus L., in the Vardnes River, Troms, northern Norway. Report Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm.
[5] Klemetsen, A., P.-A. Amundsen, J. B. Dempson, B. Jonsson, N. Jonsson, M. F. O’Connell, and E. Mortensen. 2003. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12: 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0633.2003.00010.x.
[6] Gunnarsson, Guðmundur Smári, Stefán Óli Steingrímsson, and William Tonn. 2011. Contrasting patterns of territoriality and foraging mode in two stream-dwelling salmonids, Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 2090–2100. https://doi.org/10.1139/f2011-127.
[7] Jonsson, Bror, and Kjetil Hindar. 1982. Reproductive Strategy of Dwarf and Normal Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) from Vangsvatnet Lake, Western Norway. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 1404–1413. https://doi.org/10.1139/f82-189.
[8] Grainger, E. H. 1953. On the Age, Growth, Migration, Reproductive Potential and Feeding Habits of the Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) of Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 10: 326–370. https://doi.org/10.1139/f53-023.
[9] Craig, P. C., and V. A. Poulin. 1975. Movements and Growth of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and Juvenile Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) in a Small Arctic Stream, Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-088.
[10] Dempson, J. B., and J. M. Green. 1985. Life history of anadromous arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, in the Fraser River, northern Labrador. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1139/z85-048.
[11] Rikardsen, Audun H., Ola H. Diserud, J. Malcolm Elliott, J. Brian Dempson, Johannes Sturlaugsson, and Arne J. Jensen. 2007. The marine temperature and depth preferences of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and sea trout (Salmo trutta), as recorded by data storage tags. Fisheries Oceanography 16: 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2419.2007.00445.x.
[12] Parker, H. H., and L. Johnson. 1991. Population structure, ecological segregation and reproduction in non-anadromous Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L), in four unexploited lakes in the Canadian high Arctic. Journal of Fish Biology 38: 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb03098.x.
[13] Wallace, Jeff C., Arne G. Kolbeinshavn, and Trond G. Reinsnes. 1988. The effects of stocking density on early growth in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.). Aquaculture 73: 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(88)90045-2.
[14] Jensen, John Willas. 1981. Anadromous Arctic Char, Salvelinus alpinus, Penetrating Southward on the Norwegian Coast. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1139/f81-034.
[15] Håkan Olsén, K., and Svante Winberg. 1996. Learning and sibling odor preference in juvenile arctic char,Salvelinus alpinus (L.). Journal of Chemical Ecology 22: 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02033585.
[16] NOT FOUND
[17] Anonymous farmers. 2018. Personal communication.
[18] Amundsen, Per-Arne, Børge Damsgård, Arne Mikal Arnesen, Malcolm Jobling, and Even H. Jørgensen. 1995. Experimental evidence of cannibalism and prey specialization in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 43: 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005860.
[19] Brown, G. E., J. A. Brown, and R. K. Srivastava. 1992. The effect of stocking density on the behaviour of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.). Journal of Fish Biology 41: 955–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02722.x.
[20] Hoglund, E., P.H. Balm, and S. Winberg. 2000. Skin darkening, a potential social signal in subordinate arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus): the regulatory role of brain monoamines and pro-opiomelanocortin-derived peptides. Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 1711.
[21] Langeland, A., J.H. L’Abee-Lund, B. Jonsson, and N. Jonsson. 1991. Resource Partitioning and Niche Shift in Arctic Charr Salvelinus alpinus and Brown Trout Salmo trutta. The Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 895. https://doi.org/10.2307/5420.
[22] Pickering, Alan D., and D. J. Macey. 1977. Structure, histochemistry and the effect of handling on the mucous cells of the epidermis of the char Salvelinus alpinus (L.). Journal of Fish Biology 10: 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1977.tb04083.x.
[23] Toften, H., and M. Jobling. 1996. Development of spinal deformities in Atlantic salmon and Arctic charr fed diets supplemented with oxytetracycline. Journal of Fish Biology 49: 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb00063.x.
[24] Jónsson, Bjarni, and Einar Svavarsson. 2000. Connection between egg size and early mortality in arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Aquaculture 187: 315–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00312-4.
[25] Grünbaum, Thomas, Richard Cloutier, and Nathalie R Le François. 2007. Positive effects of exposure to increased water velocity on growth of newly hatched Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus L.: Water velocity and growth of newly hatched charr. Aquaculture Research 39: 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01861.x.
[26] Bonnet, Emilie, Alexis Fostier, and Julien Bobe. 2007. Characterization of rainbow trout egg quality: A case study using four different breeding protocols, with emphasis on the incidence of embryonic malformations. Theriogenology 67: 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.10.008.
[27] Takle, Harald, Grete Baeverfjord, Merete Lunde, Kari Kolstad, and Øivind Andersen. 2005. The effect of heat and cold exposure on HSP70 expression and development of deformities during embryogenesis of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 249: 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.04.043.
[28] Eriksen, M. S., M. Bakken, Å. Espmark, B. O. Braastad, and R. Salte. 2006. Prespawning stress in farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar: maternal cortisol exposure and hyperthermia during embryonic development affect offspring survival, growth and incidence of malformations. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01071.x.
[29] Sánchez, R. C., E. B. Obregón, and Mariana Rojas Rauco. 2011. Vertebral Column Deformity and Hypoxia in Salmo salar. ResearchGate 29: 1291–1295.
[30] Kowalska, Agata, Zdzisław Zakęś, and Krystyna Demska-Zakęś. 2006. The impact of feeding on the results of rearing larval pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.) with regard to the development of the digestive tract. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 9.
[31] Demska-Zakęś, Krystyna, Agata Kowalska, and Zdzisław Zakęś. 2003. The development of the swim bladder of pikeperch sander lucioperca (L.) reared in intensive culture. Archives of Polish Fisheries 11: 45–55.
[32] Kestemont, Patrick, Xu Xueliang, Neïla Hamza, Jean Maboudou, and Ibrahim Imorou Toko. 2007. Effect of weaning age and diet on pikeperch larviculture. Aquaculture 264: 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.034.
[33] Hamza, N., P. Kestemont, I.b. Khemis, M. Mhetli, and C. Cahu. 2012. Effect of different sources and levels of dietary phospholipids on performances and fatty acid composition of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition 18: 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00891.x.
[34] Barahona-Fernandes, M. H. 1982. Body deformation in hatchery reared European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (L). Types, prevalence and effect on fish survival. Journal of Fish Biology 21: 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1982.tb02830.x.
[35] Marino, G., C. Boglione, B. Bertolini, A. Rossi, F. Ferreri, and S. Cataudella. 1993. Observations on development and anomalies in the appendicular skeleton of sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L. 1758, larvae and juveniles. Aquaculture Research 24: 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1993.tb00568.x.
[36] Infante, Jose L. Zambonino, Chantal L. Cahu, and Armande Peres. 1997. Partial Substitution of Di- and Tripeptides for Native Proteins in Sea Bass Diet Improves Dicentrarchus labrax Larval Development. The Journal of Nutrition 127: 608–614.
[37] Cahu, C.L, J.L Zambonino Infante, P Quazuguel, and M.M Le Gall. 1999. Protein hydrolysate vs. fish meal in compound diets for 10-day old sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax larvae. Aquaculture 171: 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00428-1.
[38] Fairgrieve, W. 2009. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Oncorhynchus kisutch. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[39] LocalCoho Farms. 2021. Personal communication.
[40] Lines, J. A., D. H. Robb, S. C. Kestin, S. C. Crook, and T. Benson. 2003. Electric stunning: a humane slaughter method for trout. Aquacultural Engineering 28: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(03)00021-9.
[41] 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.
[42] Hindar, K, and B. Jonsson. 1993. Ecological polymorphism in Arctic charr. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 48: 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.1993.1006.
[43] Sparholt, H. 1985. The population, survival, growth, reproduction and food of arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), in four unexploited lakes in Greenland. Journal of Fish Biology 26: 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1985.tb04270.x.
[44] Forseth, T., O. Ugedal, and B. Jonsson. 1994. The Energy Budget, Niche Shift, Reproduction and Growth in a Population of Arctic Charr, Salvelinus alpinus. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 116. https://doi.org/10.2307/5588.
[45] Olsen, R. E., and R. J. Henderson. 1997. Muscle fatty acid composition and oxidative stress indices of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), in relation to dietary polyunsaturated fatty acid levels and temperature. Aquaculture Nutrition 3: 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2095.1997.00091.x.
[46] Pickova, Jana, and Turid Mørkøre. 2007. Alternate oils in fish feeds. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 109: 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.200600222.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy