Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: 2.0 (2022-05-21) - Revision 3 (2022-07-29)

Cite expand   

Mylopharyngodon piceus is a freshwater carp native to rivers and lakes of Asia that was introduced in Europe, the United States, and other countries. This species is a carnivorous bottom-dweller fish that does not leap out of the water and, consequently, is not easily detected or caught in large and deep rivers. M. piceus is considered one of the four Chinese major carps (among Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, H. nobilis, and Ctenopharyngodon idella), which has a high growth rate and an apparent great invasion potential. Large juveniles and adults use their heavy pharyngeal teeth to crash molluscs shells, mainly feeding on these animals. Thus, besides culturing M. piceus to sell as meat because of its good flavour and highly marketable potential, this species is also cultured in polycultures with other carps or other fish species for biological control, to feed from molluscs (mainly gastropods) that are potential intermediate hosts for diseases or that can cause other problems. In the United States, this species is mostly used for snail control in catfish ponds. Spawners migrate upstream during spring to early summer to spawn in open and turbid waters. An increase in the river flow is the key triggering factor to spawning. Wild information about this carp species is rare and much information related to farm conditions is also still missing, especially related to aggression, substrate, stress response, malformations, and slaughter process. Further research about basic information from wild and cultured M. piceus is needed.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 low amount of evidence.

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.

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.

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 low amount of evidence.

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 30, level 5 being fully domesticated.

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: old JUVENILES and ADULTS prey heavily on molluscs 19-8 31, also in non-native waters 9 10, but could feed from a wider variety of insects and other invertebrates with flexibility in foraging behaviour, both in native 32-8 and in non-native waters 11. FARM and LAB: (triploid) JUVENILES feed on molluscs (P. trivolvis) 4 33. LAB: fish oil may be mostly* to completely* replaced by sustainable sources 34; fish meal may be partly* replaced by non-forage fishery components (with fish oil slightly increased) 35.

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

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 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
IND = individuals
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
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 30
LAB = setting in laboratory environment

[1] Hosain, E., N. Alam, and M. Z. Hossain. 2015. Breeding performance, spawning and nursing of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 43: 73–83. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v43i1.26140.
[2] Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
[3] Hung, N. M., D. T. The, J. R. Stauffer Jr., and H. Madsen. 2014. Feeding behavior of black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus (Pisces: Cyprinidae) on fry of other fish species and trematode transmitting snail species. Biological Control 72: 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.03.001.
[4] Venable, D. L., A. P. Gaudé, and P. L. Klerks. 2000. Control of the Trematode Bolbophorus confusus in Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Ponds Using Salinity Manipulation and Polyculture with Black Carp Mylopharyngodon piceus. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31: 158–166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2000.tb00349.x.
[5] FAO. 1983. Freshwater aquaculture development in China. Report of the FAO/UNDP study tour organized for French-speaking African countries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 215. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[6] Liu, F-G., T-S. Lin, D-U. Huang, M-L. Perng, and I. C. Liao. 2000. An automated system for egg collection, hatching, and transfer of larvae in a freshwater finfish hatchery. Aquaculture 182: 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00255-0.
[7] Bardach, J. E., J.H. Ryther, and W. O. McLamey. 1972. Aquaculture: The farming and husbandly of freshwater and marine organisms. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
[8] Nico, L. G., J. D. Williams, and J. J. Herod. 2001. Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus): A biological synopsis and updated risk assessment. Report submitted to the Risk Assessment and Management Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
[9] Nico, L. G., A. Demopoulos, D. Gualtieri, and C. M. Wieser. 2011. Use of stable isotopes and mercury to assess trophic positions of black carp and other large fishes in the Red-Atchafalaya River system, Louisiana, USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium 74: 105–120.
[10] Nico, L. G., and H. L. Jelks. 2011. The black carp in North America: an update. In Invasive Asian Carps in North America, 74:89–104.
[11] Poulton, B.C., P. T. Kroboth, A. George, D. C. Chapman, J. Bailey, S. E. McMurray, and J.S. Faiman. 2019. First Examination of Diet Items Consumed by Wild-Caught Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) in the U.S. The American Midland Naturalist 182: 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-182.1.89.
[12] Wu, X. W., G. R. Yang, P. Q. Yue, and H. J. Huang. 1964. The economic animals of China: freshwater fishes. Science Press, Beijing, China.
[13] Wu, Hsien-Wen. 1964. Chinese fishes of the family Cyprinidae. Volume 1. Shanghai Publishing House of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
[14] Xu, W., Q. H. Yang, H. Y. Tang, and H. G. Liu. 2013. Natural Reproduction of the Four Major Chinese Carps in mainstream of Yangtze River (from Yichang to Shashi) Responding to Ecological Operation of Three Gorges Reservoir. Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Symposium of the International Society for River Science: 704–711.
[15] Kroboth, P. T., C. L. Cox, D. C. Chapman, and G. W. Whitledge. 2019. Black Carp in North America: a Description of Range, Habitats, Time of Year, and Methods of Reported Captures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 39: 1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10340.
[16] Li, S., and F. Fang. 1990. On the geographical distribution of the four kinds of pond-cultured carps in China. Acta Zoologica Sinica 36: 244–250.
[17] Biró, P. 1999. Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846). In The freshwater fishes of Europe, ed. Petru M. Bǎnǎrescu, 5/I:347–365. Cyprinidae 2/I. Wiebelshiem, Germany: Aula Verlag.
[18] Atkinson, C. E. 1977. People`s Republic of China. In World fish farming: Cultivation and economics, 321–344. Avi Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut.
[19] Evtushenko, N. Y., A. S. Potrokhov, and O. G. Zinkovskii. 1994. The Black Carp as a subject for acclimatization. Hydrobiological Joumal 30: 1–10.
[20] Institute of Hydrobiology, Academia Sinica (IHAS). 1976. Fishes of the Yangtze River. SciencePress, Beijing.
[21] Gur, G., P. Melamed, A. Gissis, and Z. Yaron. 2000. Changes along the pituitary-gonadal axis during maturation of the black carp,Mylopharyngodon piceus. Journal of Experimental Zoology 286: 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(20000301)286:43.0.CO;2-C.
[22] Samad, Md Abdus, Md Towhidur Rahman, Md Istiaque Hossain, and Habiba Ferdaushy. 2016. Optimization of Stocking Density of Black Carp Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846) with Carp Polyculture in Ponds. Rajshahi University Journal of Environmental Science 5: 53–63.
[23] Chang, Y. F. 1966. Culture of freshwater fish in China. In Chinese fish culture. Report 1 of a series (January 1980).
[24] DanLi, Jiang, Lin YaYun, Wu YuBo, and Wang Yan. 2016. Stress response of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), Prussian carp (carassius auratus gibelio) and black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) to handling. Journal of Fisheries of China 40: 1479–1485.
[25] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
[26] Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp  (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
[27] Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
[28] Zhang, L., Q. Li, J. Lyu, C. Kong, S. Song, and Y. Luo. 2016. The impact of stunning methods on stress conditions and quality of silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) fillets stored at 4°C during 72h postmortem. Food chemistry 216: 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.004.
[29] Zhang, L., Y. Zhang, S. Jia, Y. Li, Q. Li, K. Li, H. Hong, and Y. Luo. 2019. Stunning stress-induced textural softening in silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) fillets and underlying mechanisms. Food Chemistry 295: 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.148.
[30] 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.
[31] Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2021. Mylopharyngodon piceus, Black carp: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
[32] Chu, Y. T. 1930. Contributions to the Ichthyology of China. Part 1. The China Journal 13: 141–146.
[33] Shelton, W., A. Soliman, and S. Rothbard. 1995. Experimental observations on feeding biology of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 47: 59–67.
[34] Sun, S., J. Ye, J. Chen, Y. Wang, and L. Chen. 2010. Effect of dietary fish oil replacement by rapeseed oil on the growth, fatty acid composition and serum non‐specific immunity response of fingerling black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus. Aquaculture Nutrition 17: 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2010.00822.x.
[35] Twahirwa, I., C. Wu, J. Ye, and Q. Zhou. 2020. The effect of dietary fish meal replacement with blood meal on growth performance, metabolic activities, antioxidant and innate immune responses of fingerlings black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus. Aquaculture Research 52: 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14927.