Advertisement

Aquaculture International

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1287–1307 | Cite as

A comprehensive survey on selective breeding programs and seed market in the European aquaculture fish industry

  • Hervé Chavanne
  • Kasper Janssen
  • Johann Hofherr
  • Franca Contini
  • Pierrick Haffray
  • Aquatrace Consortium
  • Hans Komen
  • Einar Eg Nielsen
  • Luca Bargelloni
Article

Abstract

The use of selective breeding is still relatively limited in aquaculture species. Information on such activities is sparse, hindering an overall evaluation of their success. Here, we report on the results of an online survey of the major aquaculture breeding companies operating in Europe. Six main reared fish species were targeted. A total of 31 respondents contributed to the survey, representing 75 % of European breeding organizations. Family-based breeding schemes were predominant, but individual selection was more frequently applied in marine species. Artificial fertilization is the preferred means of reproduction; however, mass spawning is often used as a fallback method. The most frequently selected trait is growth performance, but the number of selected traits has been increasing over the years through the addition of traits such as disease resistance or product quality. The use of molecular tools is now common in all programs, mainly for pedigree traceability. An increasing number of programs use either genomic or marker-assisted selection. Results related to the seed production market confirmed that for Atlantic salmon there are a few dominant players at the European level, with 30–50 % market share. Only part of the European fish aquaculture industry today fully exploits selective breeding to the best advantage. A larger impact assessment still needs to be made by the remainder, particularly on the market share of fish seed (eggs, larvae or juveniles) and its consequences for hatchery stability.

Keywords

European aquaculture Finfish Seed market Selective breeding Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement AQUATRACE n° 311920. This work is the result of the collaborative effort of researchers working on the FP7 projects AquaTrace and FishBoost. A report including a more extensive review of the seed market will be delivered to the EU by the FishBoost project. The AquaTrace project acknowledges and thanks the many people who helped in the preparation and follow-up of the survey, in particular the national contacts who contributed in providing national production statistics when authoritative statistics were missing. The AquaTrace project also gratefully acknowledges the survey’s respondents for providing extensive technical information, which was crucial to fine-tune our survey on a wider range of issues.

References

  1. AquaBreeding survey (2008) Survey on the breeding practices in the European aquaculture industry. In AquaBreeding final technical report. FP6 EU project no. 044424 (2008). Cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/124722901EN19.doc. Cited 8 May 2015Google Scholar
  2. Brown CR, Woolliams JA, McAndrew BJ (2005) Factors influencing effective population size in commercial populations of gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata. Aquaculture 247:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chavanne H, Parati K, Cambuli C, Capoferri R, Aguilera Jiménez C, Galli A (2012) Microsatellites markers to depict the reproductive and genetic patterns of farmed gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata): illustration by a case study on mass spawning. Aquac Res 45:577–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crosetti D, Rossi AR, De Innocentis S (2014) AquaTrace species leaflet: Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), p 20. https://aquatrace.eu/leaflets/gilthead. Cited in 11 July 2015
  5. Daulé S, Vandeputte M, Vergnet A, Guinand B, Grima L, Chatain B (2014) Effect of selection for fasting tolerance on feed intake, growth and feed efficiency in the European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Aquaculture 420–421:S42–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dupont-Nivet M, Karahan-Nomm B, Vergnet A, Merdy O, Haffray P, Chavanne H, Chatain B, Vandeputte M (2010) Genotype by environment interactions for growth in European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) are large when growth rate rather than weight is considered. Aquaculture 306:365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ETCGroup (2013) Putting the cartel before the Horse… and farm, seeds, soil, peasants, etc. Who will control agricultural inputs, 2013? Communiqué no. 111 September 2013. http://www.etcgroup.org/recent-reports. Cited 22 Jul 2015
  8. FEAP—European aquaculture production report 2004–2013 (2014). http://www.feap.info/default.asp?SHORTCUT=582. Cited 8 May 2015
  9. Francescon A, Barbaro A, Colombo L, Bozzato G, Chiereghin S, Belvedere S (1994) Induction of multiple spawning in the gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata L., by LH–RH analogue treatments their influence on egg quality. Riv Ital Acquacol 29:109–120Google Scholar
  10. Gjedrem T (2010) The first family-based breeding program in aquaculture. Rev Aquacult 2:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gjedrem T, Baranski M (2010) Selective breeding in aquaculture: an introduction. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Gjedrem T, Kolstad K (2012) Development of breeding programs for aquatic species should be given high priority. World Aquacult Mag 43:10–13Google Scholar
  13. Gjedrem T, Robinson N (2014) Advances by selective breeding for aquatic species: a review. Agric Sci 5:1152–1158Google Scholar
  14. Grima L, Quillet E, Boujard T, Robert-Granié C, Chatain B, Manbrini M (2008) Genetic variability in residual feed intake in rainbow trout clones and testing of indirect selection criteria. Genet Sel Evol 40:607–624PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Gura S (2007) Livestock genetics companies. Concentration and proprietary strategies of an emerging power in the global food economy. League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development. Ober-Ramstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillen J, Coscia I, Volckaert F (2014) AquaTrace species leaflet: European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), p 22. https://aquatrace.eu/leaflets/eseabass. Cited 11 Jul 2015
  17. Janssen K, Chavanne H, Berentsen P, Komen H (2016) Impact of selective breeding on European aquaculture. Aquaculture (submitted) Google Scholar
  18. Jonas E, Koning DJ (2015) Genomic selection needs to be carefully assessed to meet specific requirements in livestock breeding programs. Front Genet 6:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kause A, Tobin D, Houlihan DF, Martin SAM, Mäntysaari EA, Ritola O, Ruohonen K (2006) Feed efficiency of rainbow trout can be improved through selection: different genetic potential on alternative diets. J Anim Sci 84:807–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kause A, Quinton C, Ruohonen K, Koskela J (2008) Selection potential for feed efficiency in farmed salmonids. Genet Biodivers 2008:20–21Google Scholar
  21. Meuwissen THE, Woolliams JA (1994) Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theor Appl Genet 89:1019–1026PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosendal GK, Olesen I, Tvedt MW (2013) Evolving legal regimes, market structures and biology affecting access to and protection of aquaculture genetic resources. Aquaculture 402–403:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vandeputte M (2003) Selective breeding of quantitative traits in the common carp (Cyprinus carpio): a review. Aquat Liv Resour 16:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeder MA, Smith BD (2009) A conversation on agricultural origins. Curr Anthropol 50:681–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hervé Chavanne
    • 1
  • Kasper Janssen
    • 2
  • Johann Hofherr
    • 3
  • Franca Contini
    • 3
  • Pierrick Haffray
    • 4
  • Aquatrace Consortium
  • Hans Komen
    • 2
  • Einar Eg Nielsen
    • 5
  • Luca Bargelloni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food ScienceUniversity of PadovaLegnaroItaly
  2. 2.Department of Animal Breeding and GeneticsWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), Maritime Affairs UnitIspraItaly
  4. 4.SYSAAF, LPGP/INRARennesFrance
  5. 5.Section for Population Ecology and Genetics, National Institute of Aquatic ResourcesTechnical University of DenmarkSilkeborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations