Giant gourami

Osphronemus goramy

Osphronemus goramy (Giant gourami)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Anabantiformes
        • Osphronemidae
          • Osphronemus goramy

Information


Author: Jenny Volstorf
Version: 2.0 (2022-01-22)

Cite

Reviewer: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Volstorf, Jenny. 2022. Osphronemus goramy (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2020-02-08. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Osphronemus goramy
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

Osphronemus goramy of the family Osphronemidae is originally living in freshwater bodies of Southeast Asia. By now, it has been introduced into Europe, Australia, and India. Despite its slow growth and low fecundity, it is being assumed suitable for farming due to its air breathing, which makes it withstand low oxygen levels in ponds, and the possibility to thrive on a mostly plant-based diet. Farming has probably been done for hundreds of years and has increased in intensity, while the wild stocks have decreased. A main caveat in production is the large variation in reproduction partially assumed to be caused by unfavourable sex ratios, but non-invasive sexing might be one way of improvement.
For O. goramy to increase its FishEthoScore, more research is needed on the biology and on natural conditions of home range, depth, migration, reproduction, aggregation, aggression, substrate, as well as on water parameter requirements, stress, and stunning. High mortality in larvae and fry stage and decrease in reproduction in spawners might be reduced by moving hatcheries and broodstock facilities inside to protect them from sun and rain, predators, disease, and noise and to better control water parameters.

Note: Due to reaching maturity after the typical age and weight at slaughter, there is no age class "Adults" in the profile.




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: no data found yet. FARM: glass aquaria: 100 L 1; mainly tarpaulin tanks: 2-36 m2 and concrete tanks: 10-100 m2 2.

JUVENILES: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 300-500 m2 recommended 3, earthen ponds: 200-870 m2, higher fecundity in pools compartmentalised with nets into 8-20 m2 areas 1, 300-1,000 m2 4, 24-1,100 m2 in open or compartmentalised ponds 2, 525-570 m2 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 farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: 3-5 m 6. FARM: mainly tarpaulin and concrete tanks: 15-50 cm water level 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: 3-5 m 6, 1.6 m 7. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: attached nest to bulrush 15-25 cm below water surface, ca 30 cm above bottom 8, farmers attached nest support to bamboo poles 15-20 cm below water surface 3 1 2, 1 m recommended 3, earthen ponds: 0.6 m 1, 0.5-1.5 m 4. LAB: earthen ponds: 1.5 m 9.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

EURYHALINE 10.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD, 26.8-30.6 °C 6 10 7, 19-23 °C during winter, 22.4-32 °C during summer 11, fresh water 6 11 12 7 13 14 15 16, brackish water 10. Further research needed on migration. FARM: earthen ponds: 11-13 h, 27.1-39.9 °C 2, fresh water 1 2. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD:  LARVAE. FARM: earthen ponds: 11-13 h, 22.6-34.7 °C 1 2, fresh water 1 2. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

SPAWNERS: WILD:  LARVAE. FARM:  JUVENILES.




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?

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

WILD: no data found yet. FARM: brooders are kept in earthen spawning ponds for 3-6 months at a time for 2-3 egg production periods per year 2 5 (separated by sex in the intervening resting times 1 2) at male:female ratio of 1:1-1:4 3 1 2 5. Identification of sex in mature individuals by stripping in males (very difficult due to oligospermia) or cannulation in females, but also possible via secondary characters, especially in black phenotype (males with bulging forehead and lower jaw, females with black spot at pectoral peduncle) 5. Spontaneous spawning when provided with nest substrate ( crit. 7) 9 1 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?

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: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 100 L glass aquaria: 4-5 eggs/cm2 1.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 111-714 IND/m2 3 2. LAB: 150 IND/m2 with highest growth rate, decreasing with increasing density 17.

JUVENILESWILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 1 IND/7-10 m2 3, 1 IND/4-5 m2 1 5, 0.02-0.75 IND/m2 (mean 0.17 IND/m2) or 1 IND/5-6 m2 2.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: FARM: no data found yet. LAB: no aggression, no cannibalism 17.

JUVENILES: FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: FARM: large number of males resulted in fights and injuries 3, fights between males, reduced by compartmentalising pools with nets ( crit. 1) and thereby separating males 1 2.




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

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: were found where there was also a moderate to abundant presence of duckweed (Lemna minor), knot grass (Polygonum barbatum), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water mimosa (Neptunia oleracea), oxygen weed (Hydrilla verticillata), giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta), common reed (Phragmites australis) 15. FARM: tanks or aquaria with water plants (Hydrilla, Ceratophyllum) for individuals to attach to or rest on 3, no protection from sun or rain, probably causing high mortality 2.

JUVENILES: WILD LARVAE and FRY. FARM: of floating macrophytes, JUVENILES preferred Lemna minor as food, but Azolla filiculoides is also recommended for food, water remediation, high productivity, and low risk of non-productive cycles in small-scale fish farming 18.

SPAWNERS: WILD: LARVAE and FRY. FARM: earthen ponds with bulrush 8 or palm tree fibre for nest building 9 1 2 and baskets of braided bamboo strips on bamboo poles as nest support at 15-20 cm below water surface 3 1 2 at frequency of at least 1 nest/male 1. In ponds without nest support, dugged crevices (by farmer) in earthen pond banks were used 2. Nest building mainly by males, but also females 1. No protection from sun or rain, probably decreasing spawning frequency and causing diseases 2.




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 and FRY: stressed by handling and noise 2.

JUVENILES: stressed by transport 4.

SPAWNERS: stressed by handling and noise 2.




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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: stunning in chilled water, then bleeding and evisceration 4. High-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.




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 19, level 5 being fully domesticated. Life cycle closed around 1900 1, pond culture much older 20-17, probably for centuries 4.




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)?

WILD: herbivorous 21, omnivorous with vegetarian focus 18. FARM: for JUVENILES, fish meal and fish oil may be partly* replaced by plants 22 18, SPAWNERS were mainly fed with plants 2, but no data found yet on replacements for FRY.

*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 farm environment
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
IND = individuals
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 19



Bibliography


[1] Arifin, Otong Zenal, Jacques Slembrouck, Jojo Subagja, Simon Pouil, Akhmad Yani, Asependi Asependi, Anang Hari Kristanto, and Marc Legendre. 2019. New insights into giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy) reproductive biology and egg production control. Aquaculture: 734743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734743.
[2] Kristanto, Anang Hari, Jacques Slembrouck, Jojo Subagja, Simon Pouil, Otong Zenal Arifin, Vitas Atmadi Prakoso, and Marc Legendre. 2019. Survey on egg and fry production of giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy): Current rearing practices and recommendations for future research. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society n/a: 20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12647.
[3] Woynarovich, E., and L. Horváth. 1980. The artificial propagation of warm-water finfishes - a manual for extension. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 201. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[4] Caruso, D., Z. O. Arifin, J. Subagja, Jacques Slembrouck, and M. New. 2019. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Osphronemus goramy (Lacépède, 1801). Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[5] Slembrouck, Jacques, Otong Z. Arifin, Simon Pouil, Jojo Subagja, Akhmad Yani, Anang H. Kristanto, and Marc Legendre. 2019. Gender identification in farmed giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy): A methodology for better broodstock management. Aquaculture 498: 388–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.056.
[6] Kah-Wai, Kong, and Ahyaudin B. Ali. 2001. Chenderoh Reservoir, Malaysia: Fish Community and Artisanal Fishery of a Small Mesotrophic Tropical Reservoir. In ACIAR Proceedings, 98:167–178. Bangkok, Thailand.
[7] Djumanto, nFN, Maria Intan P. Devi, and Eko Setyobudi. 2013. Ichthyofauna distribution in downstream region of Opak River, Yogyakarta [Persebaran iktiofauna di bagian hilir Sungai Opak, Yogyakarta]. Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia 13: 97–108. https://doi.org/10.32491/jii.v13i2.97.
[8] Bhimachar, B. S., Augustine David, and B. Muniappa. 1944. Observations on the acclimatisation, nesting habits and early development of Osphronemus gorami (Lacépède). Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 20: 88–101.
[9] Amornsakun, Thumronk, Surasak Kullai, and Anuar Hassan. 2014. Some aspects in early life stage of giant gourami, Osphronemus goramy (Lacepede) larvae. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 36: 493–498.
[10] Jalal, K. C. A., M. Ahmad Azfar, B. Akbar John, Y. B. Kamaruzzaman, and S. Shahbudin. 2012. Diversity and Community Composition of Fishes in Tropical Estuary Pahang Malaysia. Pakistan J. Zool. 44: 181–187.
[11] Prasad, A. G. Devi, G. V. Venkataramana, and Mathew Thomas. 2009. Fish diversity and its conservation in major wetlands of Mysore. Journal of Environmental Biology 30: 713–718.
[12] Hashim, Zarul Hazrin, Amir Shah Ruddin Md. Shah, Mohd. Syaiful Mohammad, Mashhor Mansor, and Shahrul Anuar Mohd. Sah. 2012. Fishes of Sungai Enam and Sungai Telang in Temengor Reservoir, Perak, Malaysia. Check List 8: 027–031. https://doi.org/10.15560/8.1.027.
[13] Shafiq, Zakeyuddin Mohd, Md Shah Amir Shah Ruddin, Hazrin Hashim Zarul, Mohammad Mohd Syaiful, Md Zain Khaironizam, Puteh Khaled, and Yusoff Hamzah. 2014. An annotated checklist of fish fauna of Bukit Merah Reservoir and its catchment area, Perak, Malaysia. Check List 10: 822–828. https://doi.org/10.15560/10.4.822.
[14] Radhi, Amonodin Mohamad, Hashim Rohasliney, and Hazrin Zarul. 2017. Fish Composition and Diversity in Perak, Galas and Kelantan Rivers (Malaysia) After the Major Flood of 2014. Transyl. Rev. Sys. Ecol. Res. 19: 41–56.
[15] Ismail, Siti Norasikin, Muzzalifah Abd Hamid, and Mashhor Mansor. 2018. Ecological correlation between aquatic vegetation and freshwater fish populations in Perak River, Malaysia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 19: 279–284. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d190138.
[16] Cuadrado, Jerry Tioaquen, Danah Sofia Lim, Rydyll Mae S. Alcontin, Jan Lloyd L. Calang, and Joycelyn C. Jumawan. 2019. Species composition and length-weight relationship of twelve fish species in the two lakes of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, Philippines. FishTaxa 4: 1–8.
[17] Arifin, Otong Zenal, Vitas Atmadi Prakoso, Jojo Subagja, Anang Hari Kristanto, Simon Pouil, and Jacques Slembrouck. 2019. Effects of stocking density on survival, food intake and growth of giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy) larvae reared in a recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 509: 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.05.010.
[18] Slembrouck, Jacques, Reza Samsudin, Brata Pantjara, Ahmad Sihabuddin, Marc Legendre, and Domenico Caruso. 2018. Choosing floating macrophytes for ecological intensification of small-scale fish farming in tropical areas: a methodological approach. Aquatic Living Resources 31: 9. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2018017.
[19] 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.
[20] Cuvier, Georges, and A. Valenciennes. 1828. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Paris, France: Levrault.
[21] Azfar, A. M., K. C. A. Jalal, and A. Siti-Waznah. 2015. Food Partitioning Among Fishes in Phang River-Estuary, Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi 77. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6741.
[22] Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc, Tran Thi Thanh Hien, and Tran Ngoc Hai. 2013. Potential Uses of Gut Weed Enteromorpha spp. as a Feed For Herbivorous Fish. In Special Publication, 4. Oostende, Belgium: European Aquaculture Society.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy