GeoJournal

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 233–241 | Cite as

Improvement of productivity through breeding schemes

  • Gjedrem Trygve 
Aquaculture: Promises and Constraints

Abstract

The possibility to improve productivity in aquaculture by applying selective breeding and hybridization is very good. This is due particularly to large genetic variability in most economically important traits and high fecundity in species of interest. To increase efficiency, individual selection should be combined with family selection. It is concluded that if additive genetic variance is present in economically important traits, selection should be practiced, and if non-additive genetic variance is considerable, selection should be combined with crossbreeding. It is recommended that breeding stations be established to carry out selection programmes. Breeding programmes need considerable investments and operating funds. However, they have been shown to produce very favourable benefit/cost relationships.

In an appendix a recording scheme for rainbow trout and a description of how selection is practiced are given.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, B. B.: Genetiske undersøkelser vedrørende kvaegets tilvaekst, kropsudvikling og foderudnyttelse, Rep-No. 488, Natl. Inst. Anim. Sci., Copenhagen, 137 pp., 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Aulstad, D.; Gjedrem, T.; Skjervold, H.: Genetic and environmental sources of variation in length and weight of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29, 237–241 (1972)Google Scholar
  3. Ayles, G. B.; Baker, R. F.: Genetic differences in growth and survival between strains and hybrids of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) stocked in aquaculture lakes in the Canadian prairies. Aquaculture 33, 269–280 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. Barlow, R.: Benefit-cost analyses of genetic improvement programs for sheep, beef cattle and pigs in Ireland. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Dublin. Ref. by E. P. Cunningham, 1983. Present and future perspective in animal breeding research. XV. International Congress of Genetics, New Delhi, India, 12.–21.12., 19 pp., 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Bondary, K.: Response to bidirectional selection for body weight in channel catfish. Aquaculture 33, 73–82 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. Brody, T.; Storch, N.; Kirsht, D.; Hulata, G.; Wohlfarth, G.; Moav, R.: Application of electrophoretic genetic markers to fish breeding. III. Diallel analysis of growth rate in carp. Aquaculture 20, 371–379 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. Busack, G. A.: Four generations of selection for high 56-day weight in the mosquitofish. Aquaculture 33, 83–88 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. Calhoon, R. E.; Bohren, B. B.: Genetic gains from reciprocal recurrent and within-line selection for egg production in the fowl. Theor. Appl. Genet. 44, 364–372 (1974)Google Scholar
  9. Chevassus, B.: Hybridization in salmonids: Results and prespectives. Aquaculture 17, 113–128 (1979)Google Scholar
  10. Chevassus, B.: Hybridization in salmonids: Results and perspectives. Aquaculture 17, 113–128 (1979)Google Scholar
  11. Comstock, R. E.; Robinson, H. F.; Harvey, P. H.: A breeding procedure designed to make maximum use of both general and specific combining ability. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 41, 360–367 (1949)Google Scholar
  12. Dickerson, G. E.: Inbred lines for heterosis tests? In: Gowen, J. W. (ed.), Heterosis, 330–351 pp., Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa 1952.Google Scholar
  13. Dudley, J. W.: 76 generations of selection for oil and protein percentage in maize. Proc. Int. Conf. Quantitative Genetics, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa, pp. 459–473, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Dunham, R. A.; Smitherman, R. O.: Response to selection and realized heritability for body weight in three strains of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, grown in earthen ponds. Aquaculture 33, 89–96 (1983)Google Scholar
  15. Enfield, F. D.: Recurrent selection and response plateaus. First world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, 7–11 October 1974, pp. 365–371, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Falconer, D. S.: Introduction to quantitative genetics. Second edition. 340 pp., Longman, London and New York 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Friars, G. W.; Bailey, J. K.; Saunders, R. L.: Considerations of a method of analyzing diallel crosses of Atlantic salmon. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 21, 121–128 (1979)Google Scholar
  18. Gall, G. A. E.: Genetics of reproduction in domesticated rainbow trout. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 19–28 (1975)Google Scholar
  19. Gjedrem, T.: Possibilities of genetic gain in salmonids. Aquaculture 6, 23–29 (1975)Google Scholar
  20. Gjedrem, T.: Possibilities for genetic improvement in salmonids. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33, 1094–1099 (1976)Google Scholar
  21. Gjedrem, T.: Genetic variation in quantitative traits and selective breeding in fish and shellfish. Aquaculture 33, 51–72 (1983)Google Scholar
  22. Gjedrem, T.: Korleis skal vi spreia framgangen fra avlsarbeidet. Omfang og organisering. (How can we spread genetic gain from the selection program in salmonids.) Speech at Fiskeoppdrett 1983, 22.–25. August 1983, 12 pp., 1983a.Google Scholar
  23. Gjerde, B.; Gunnes, K.; Gjedrem, T.: Effect of inbreeding on survival and growth in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 37, 327–332 (1983)Google Scholar
  24. Gjerde, B.; Refstie, T.: Complete diallel cross between five strains of Atlantic salmon. Livest. Prod. Sci. 11, 207–226 (1984)Google Scholar
  25. Gunnes, K.; Gjedrem, T.: Selection experiments with salmon. IV. Growth of Atlantic salmon during two years in the sea. Aquaculture 15, 19–33 (1978)Google Scholar
  26. Gunnes, K.; Gjedrem, T.: A genetic analysis of body weight and length in rainbow trout reared in sea water for 18 months. Aquaculture 24, 161–174 (1981)Google Scholar
  27. Hazel, L. N.; Lush, J. L.: The efficiency of three methods of selection. J. Hered. 33, 393–399 (1942)Google Scholar
  28. Hulata, G.; Wohlfarth, G.; Rothbard, S.: Progeny-testing selection of tilapia broodstocks producting all-male hybrid progenies —preliminary results. Aquaculture 33, 263–268 (1983)Google Scholar
  29. ICLARM. Newsletter, 7, 1 (January 1984), ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  30. Kincaid, H. L.: Effect of inbreeding on rainbow trout populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105, 273–280 (1976a)Google Scholar
  31. Kincaid, H. L. Inbreeding in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33, 2420–2426 (1976b)Google Scholar
  32. Kinghorn, B.: Genetic variation in food conversion efficiency and growth in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 32, 141–155 (1983)Google Scholar
  33. Kirpichnikov, V. S.: Genetic basis of fish selection. 410 pp., Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1981.Google Scholar
  34. Mallet, A. L.; Haley, L. E.: Effects of inbreeding on larval and spat performance in the American oyster. Aquaculture 33, 229–235 (1983)Google Scholar
  35. McNew, R. W.; Bell, A E.: Comparisons of crossbred and purebred selection for a heterotic trait in highly selected populations of Tribolium. 3. 67, 275–283 (1976)Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, G.; Smith, C.; Makower, M.; Bird, P. J. W. N.: An economic appraisal of pig improvement in Great Britain. Genetic and production aspects. Anim. Prod. 35, 215–224 (1982)Google Scholar
  37. Moav, R.: Genetic improvement in aquaculture industry. FAO Technical conference on aquaculture. Kyoto, Japan, 26 May –2 June, 23 pp., 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Moav, R.; Hulata, G.; Wohlfarth, G.: Genetic differences between the Chinese and European races of the common carp. 1. Analysis of genotype — environment interactions. Heredity 34, 323–340 (1975)Google Scholar
  39. Newkirk, G. F.: Review of the genetics and the potential for selective breeding of commercially important bivalves. Aquaculture 19, 209–228 (1980)Google Scholar
  40. Newkirk, G. F.; Haley, L. E.: Selection for growth rate in the European oyster, Ostrea edulis; response of second generation groups. Aquaculture 33, 149–156 (1983)Google Scholar
  41. Pruginin, Y.; Rothbard, S.; Wohlfarth, G.; Harvey, A.; Moav, R.; Hulata, G.: All-male broods of Tilapia nilotica × T. aurea hybrids. Aquaculture 6, 11–21 (1975)Google Scholar
  42. Refstie, T.: Effect of density on growth and survival of rainbow trout. Aquaculture 11, 329–334 (1977)Google Scholar
  43. Refstie, T.: Genetic and environmental sources of variation in body weight and length of rainbow trout fingerlings. Aquaculture 19, 351–357 (1980)Google Scholar
  44. Refstie, T.; Aulstad, D.: Tagging experiment with salmonids. Aquaculture 5, 367–374 (1974)Google Scholar
  45. Refstie, T.; Steine, T.: Selection experiments with salmon. III. Genetic and environmental sources of variation in length and weight of Atlantic salmon in the fresh water phase. Aquaculture 14, 221–234 (1978)Google Scholar
  46. Sneed, K. E.: Some current North American work in hybridization and selection of cultured fishes. In: FAO Seminar/Study tour in the USSR on genetic selection and hybridization of cultivated fishes. Rep. FAO/UNDP-(TA) 2926, pp. 143–150, 1971.Google Scholar
  47. Suzuki, R.; Yamaguchi, M.: Improvement of quality in the common carp by crossbreeding. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 46, 1427–1434 (1980)Google Scholar
  48. Vangen, O.: Framtidig avlsopplegg pa svin i en KS-situasjon. Aktuelt fra Statens fagtjeneste for land-bruket, 1, 300–306 (1984)Google Scholar
  49. Webb, A. J.; King, J. W. B.: Development of a synthetic pig sire line by selection with immigration. A. Results of selection and heritability estimates. Anim. Prod. 22, 231–244 (1976)Google Scholar
  50. Wohlfarth, G. W.; Moav, R.; Hulata, G.: A genotype — environment interaction for growth rate in the common carp, growing in intensively manured ponds. Aquaculture 33, 187–195 (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gjedrem Trygve 
    • 1
  1. 1.The Agricultural Research Council of NorwayInstitute of Aquaculture ResearchÅs-NLHNorway

Personalised recommendations