Information
Version: C | 2.0 (2023-04-20)
- internal review resulting in minor editorial and major content changes (changing the scoring in criteria 3 and 4)
- transfer to consistent age class and label structure resulting in changed appearance
WelfareScore | farm
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
WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)
General remarks
Osteobrama belangeri is a medium size freshwater, benthopelagic, and tropical cyprinid fish that naturally inhabits rivers and lakes in India, Myanmar, and China. The natural populations are declining mainly due to habitat degradation, pollution, hydroelectric power projects, construction of dams, overexploitation, and introduction of non-native fish species, especially Cyprinus carpio. This has resulted in O. belangeri being listed as one of the endangered fish species of India and as near threatened by IUCN. It can be considered as a potential species for diversification of carp culture as well as being a highly priced fish with a great demand due to its association with the cultural heritage in some regions. Despite that, it has lower growth potential compared to the Indian major carps (Labeo catla, L. rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala), and its growth and survival has been far from satisfactory in farms. Moreover, O. belangeri is vulnerable to diseases. This cyprinid is normally kept in polycultures with other carps. As O. belangeri is mainly herbivorous, it can replace Ctenopharyngodon idella in such polycultures. The grow-out phase has been confined mainly to earthen ponds, and it is probably harvested while still a juvenile. Despite its potential for carp culture, its domestication is just beginning, and most important wild information is still missing for this species. Moreover, essential information about specific stress responses, malformations, and stunning/slaughtering protocols under farm conditions is also missing. Thus, it is still a challenge to assess the welfare conditions of this cyprinid in captivity.
Note: for farming conditions, the age class “Larvae and fry” refers also to young juveniles, and the age class “Juveniles” refers also to larvae and fry, as the literature does not always specify.
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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.3 Migration
Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.
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 low amount of evidence.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 of theses circumstances?
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.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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, turbidity).
What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?
There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as we cannot be sure that the species uses and prefers silt and clay bottoms. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.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 unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.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 low amount of evidence.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 1 30, level 5 being fully domesticated.
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: mainly herbivorous 2 5 15 31 12 9 32 – especially as ADULTS 33 – but also classified as omnivorous 33 31 17 32.
- FARM: supplementary feed containing sustainable sources without fish meal 2 4 3 15 34 9.
- LAB: FRY: better growth and survival at 40-45% compared to lower or higher protein levels 35. Diets containing sustainable sources without fish meal 35. JUVENILES: better growth at 25% 31 32 or 40% 36 compared to lower or higher protein levels. Fish meal may be completely* replaced by non-forage fishery components 37.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%.
Glossary
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 1 = first trials of acclimatisation to the culture environment 30
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
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Behera, B. K., P. Das, N. S. Singh, and A. K. Sahu. 2010. Captive Breeding of an endemic medium carp Pengba, Osteobrama Belangeri (Val.) with WOVA-FH in Manipur. Journal of Aquaculture 18: 23–29.
3 Das, P., B. K. Behera, D. K. Meena, S. K. Singh, S. C. Mandal, S. S. Das, A. K. Yadav, and B. K. Bhattacharjya. 2016. Comparative efficacy of different inducing agents on breeding performance of a near threatened cyprinid Osteobrama belangeri in captivity. Aquaculture Reports 4: 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2016.11.001.
4 Behera, B. K., D. K. Meena, P. Das, N. S. Singh, and S. Pakrashi. 2015. Pengba, a prospective species for diversification of carp polyculture: conservation and future prospects. World Aquaculture 46: 52–54.
5 Das, S. K., and Th. N. Singh. 2017. Captive breeding and Embryonic development of Endangered, Osteobrama belangeri (Val., 1844) under Mid-hill condition in North east India. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 87: 1546–1550.
6 Das, P. C., P. K. Sahoo, S. Mohanty, M. Mishra, and S. K. Swain. 2020. Growth performance of pengba, Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes, 1844) and water quality changes during fingerling rearing with varied stocking density in large outdoor concrete tanks. Aquaculture Research 51: 982–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14444.
7 Kumar, A., C. Ravi, T. Chanu, S. Mishra, U. Kumar, and P. C. Das. 2017. Effect of Different Weaning Strategies on Survival and Growth of Endangered Fish Pengba, Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes, 1844) Larvae. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience 5: 951–957. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5153.
8 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.
9 Sahu, S. K. 2020. Pengba, Osteobrama Belangeri (Valenciennes,1844) A Prospective Species For Diversification Of Carp Polyculture System And Suggestions Towards The Adoption Of Scientific Fish Farming In Haldia, West Bengal. International Research Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5: 54–58.
10 Jayasankar, P. 2015. CIFA Annual Report 2015–16. Bhubaneswar, India: ICAR- Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture.
11 Das, P. C., P. K. Sahoo, S. P. Kamble, K. Murmu, and C. Basudha. 2020. Compatibility of pengba, Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes) with Indian major carps and evaluation of its ideal incorporation level in carp polyculture system in planes of India. Aquaculture 518: 734845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734845.
12 Yengkokpam, S., D. Debnath, B. K. Bhattacharya, A. K. Yadav, P. Das, K. K. Sarma, and B. K. Das. 2019. Polyculture of Osteobrama belangeri with major carps in pen enclosures in Takmu lake of Manipur. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India 51: 125–132. https://doi.org/10.47780/jifsi.51.2.2019.106697.
13 Devi, G. A., G. S. Devi, O. B. Singh, S. Munilkumar, and A. K. Reddy. 2009. Induced Spawning and Hatching of Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes) Using Ovatide, an Ovulating Agent. Asian Fisheries Science 22: 1107–1115.
14 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Osteobrama belangeri, Pengba: fisheries, aquaculture. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
15 Khuman, O.N., Y. J. Singh, A. Sarkar, A. D. Upadhyay, P. Pal, H. Bharati, S. K. Singh, C. Pegu, and K. Borah. 2018. Knowledge Level of Fish Farmers on Scientific Farming of Pengba (Osteobrama belangeri) in the Valleys of Manipur. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 11: 661–664. https://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.08.2018.7.
16 Khwairakpam, E., R. Khosa, A. Gosain, and A. Nema. 2020. Habitat suitability analysis of Pengba fish in Loktak Lake and its river basin. Ecohydrology 13: e2164. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2164.
17 Khaing, M. M., and K. Y. M. Khaing. 2020. Food and Feeding Habits of Some Freshwater Fishes from Ayeyarwady River, Mandalay District, Myanmar. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 416: 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/416/1/012005.
18 Yadav, B., and K. Eliza. 2017. A hybrid wavelet-support vector machine model for prediction of Lake water level fluctuations using hydro-meteorological data. Measurement 103: 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.03.003.
19 Basudha, C., and R. Singh. 2021. Breeding And Culture Of Osteobrama belangeri. In Fisheries And Aquaculture In Northeast India: R & D trends and Opportunities. Manipur, India: ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Manipur Centre, Lamphelpat, Imphal.
20 Basudha, C. 2007. Induced spawning of Osteobrama belangeri (Val.), a critically endangered fish in India using carp pituitary and Ovaprim. Aqua 8: 231–236.
21 Khuman O. N., and Singh Y. J. 2019. Fish farmers’ perceived constraints and suggestions towards the adoption of scientific fish farming. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8: 2489–2494. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.289.
22 King, R P. 1994. Seasonal dynamics in the trophic status of Papyrocranus afer (Günther, 1868) (Notopteridae) in a nigerian rainforest stream. Rev. Hydrobiol. trop. 27: 143–155.
23 NBSS, and LUP. 2001. Land Capability Classes of Catchment Area of Loktak Lake, Manipur. Jorhat and Kolkata, India: National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Regional Centre.
24 Ayyappan, S. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Cirrhinus mrigala. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
25 Jena, J.K. 2009. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Catla catla. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
26 Jena, J. K. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Labeo rohita. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
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 Surjobala, N., S. C. Mandal, A. Patel, P. Pal, and P. K. Pandey. 2019. Optimization of Dietary Protein Requirement for the Growth, Survival and Feed Utilization of Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes, 1844) Fingerling. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 36: 290–298. https://doi.org/10.5958/2231-6744.2019.00048.3.
32 Surjobala, N., S. C. Mandal, A. B. Patel, J. Parhi, and P. K. Pandey. 2020. Effect of Graded Protein Levels on the Growth, Survival and Body Composition of Juvenile Osteobrama belangeri using Semi Purified Diet. Indian Journal of Animal Research 55: 810–817. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.B-4123.
33 Basudha, C., and W. Vishwanath. 1999. Food & feeding habits of an endemic carp, Osteobrama belangeri (Val.) in Manipur. Indian Journal of Fisheries 46: 71–77.
34 Khuman, O. N., Y. J Singh, A. Sarkar, A. D. Upadhyay, P. Pal, and A. B. Patel. 2019. Present Status of Pengba (Osteobrama belangeri) Farming in the Valleys of Manipur. Indian Journal of Hill Farming 32: 283–286.
35 Ramesh, R., K. Dube, A. K. Reddy, P. Rangacharyulu, G. Venkateshwarlu, and P. Jayasankar. 2017. Effect of varying protein levels on growth and digestive enzyme activities of pengba Osteobrama belangeri (Valenciennes, 1844). Indian Journal of Fisheries 64: 206–213. https://doi.org/10.21077/IJF.2017.64.SPECIAL-ISSUE.76272-31.
36 Basudha, C., and W. Vishwanath. 2001. Growth and Feed Utilization Efficiency of Osteobrama belangeri Fed Diets Containing Different Levels of Protein. Fishery Technology 38: 110–114.
37 Basudha, C. H., and W. Viswanath. 2002. Nutritional evaluation of chicken gut and snail meat in diets of Osteobrama belangeri (Val.). Indian Journal of Fisheries 49: 211–215.
