Assessment of Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) Welfare in the Semi-Intensive and Intensive Culture Systems in Thailand
Author:
Lertwanakarn Tuchakorn1ORCID, Purimayata Thitima23, Luengyosluechakul Thnapol2, Grimalt Pau Badia4, Pedrazzani Ana Silvia5, Quintiliano Murilo Henrique6ORCID, Surachetpong Win3ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Veterinary Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 2. Graduate Program in Animal Health and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 3. Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 4. FAI Registered Office Company Address, The Barn, Wytham, Oxford OX2 8QJ, UK 5. Wai Ora Aquaculture and Environmental Technology Ltd., Curitiba 80240-050, Brazil 6. FAI Farms, Londrina 86115-000, Brazil
Abstract
Welfare assessments have risen to prominence in the aquaculture industry, with increasing awareness of their significance among stakeholders in Thailand. In this study, we conducted a welfare assessment of tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) farms in Thailand, focusing on health, environmental, behavioural, and nutritional indicators. Comparing semi-intensive (earthen ponds) and intensive farming practices (cage culture), we found significant differences in the overall health score, particularly at farm F due to a disease outbreak (Kruskal–Wallis, p = 0.01). Skin and fin scores varied across farms, indicating their potential as indicators of tilapia health. Environmental assessments revealed differences in transparency between the two culturing systems (Mann–Whitney, p = 0.02). During the harvesting process, tilapia behaviours indicated poor welfare across all farms. However, no statistically significant difference in overall welfare scores was found between the two culturing systems. Correlations were observed between nutritional, environmental, and health indicators, with negative correlations between fish density and water transparency (r = −0.87, p = 0.02), presence of inhabitants (r = −0.78, p = 0.04), feeding behaviours (r = −0.78, p = 0.04), and swimming behaviours during capture (r = −0.98, p = 0.001). These findings provide valuable insights to enhance tilapia-farming practices and welfare in Thailand.
Funder
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, the Office of the Prime Minister, through Kasetsart University
Subject
General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology
Reference45 articles.
1. Food and Agricultural Organization (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022, FAO. Towards Blue Transformation. 2. Noorit, K. (2023, July 20). Situation of Tilapia and Their Products in 2021 and Trends in 2022 of Thailand. Available online: https://www.fisheries.go.th/strategy/fisheconomic/Monthly%20report/tilapia/3.situation%20of%20tilapia%20Q4%2064.pdf. 3. Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A.N., McGreevy, P.D., Jones, B., and Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10. 4. (2023, July 20). Guidance on the Application on the Application of Thai Agricultural Standard: Good Aquaculture Practices for Food-Aquatic Animals Farm. Available online: https://www.fisheries.go.th/local/file_document/20220531115826_1_file.pdf. 5. (2023, June 16). Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) Variance Request Procedure Version 2.0. Available online: https://www.asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ASC-Standards-related-variance-request-procedure-v1.pdf.
|
|