An allelic cross between Salmo trutta fario and Salvelinus alpinus was carried out under con- trolled hatchery conditions. Survival to the eyed stage was significantly lower for the hybrid than for both purebreds. There were significant differences in survival in the eyed and yolk sac stages and from fertilization to the first feeding (p0.05). The hybrid did not display heterosis with respect to any hatchery property. During the first 45 days of nursing, there were significant differences between the purebreds and the hybrid in terms of weight gain, survival, feed conversion ratio and specific growth rate (p0.05). The hybrid was slightly heterotic (+1.69) with respect to survival how- ever no heterosis was observed in any other property to the first feeding stage

Aras-Hisar, Sukriye

Hisar, Olcay

Yanik, Telat

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa

The Open Access Israeli Journal of Aquaculture – BamidgehAs from January 2010 The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh (IJA) will be published  exclusively  as  an  on-line  Open  Access  (OA) quarterly  accessible  by  all AquacultureHub  (http://www.aquaculturehub.org)  members  and  registered  individuals and institutions.  Please visit our website (http://siamb.org.il) for free registration form, further information and instructions.  This transformation from a subscription printed version to an on-line OA journal, aims at supporting the concept that scientific peer-reviewed publications should be made available to all, including those with limited resources. The OA IJA does not enforce author or subscription fees and will endeavor to obtain alternative sources of income to support this policy for as long as possible.Editor-in-ChiefDan Mires Editorial BoardSheenan Harpaz Agricultural Research OrganizationBeit Dagan, IsraelZvi Yaron Dept. of ZoologyTel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv, IsraelAngelo Colorni National Center for Mariculture, IOLREilat, IsraelRina Chakrabarti Aqua Research LabDept. of ZoologyUniversity of DelhiIngrid Lupatsch Swansea UniversitySingleton Park, Swansea, UKJaap van Rijn The Hebrew University Faculty of AgricultureIsraelSpencer Malecha Dept. of Human Nutrition, Food and Animal SciencesUniversity of HawaiiDaniel Golani The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalem, IsraelEmilio Tibaldi Udine UniversityUdine, ItalyCopy Editor Ellen Rosenberg Published under auspices ofThe Society of Israeli Aquaculture and Marine Biotechnology (SIAMB), University of Hawaii at Manoa Library andUniversity of Hawaii Aquaculture Program in association withAquacultureHub http://www.aquaculturehub.org              ISSN 0792 - 156X Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - BAMIGDEH.PUBLISHER: Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - BAMIGDEH -Kibbutz Ein Hamifratz, Mobile Post 25210, ISRAELPhone: + 972 52 3965809http://siamb.org.il The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture – Bamidgeh 55(3), 2003, 154-159.154HATCHERY AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF TWO TROUT PURE BREEDS, SALVELINUS ALPINUSAND SALMO TRUTTA FARIO, AND THEIR HYBRIDSukriye Aras-Hisar, Telat Yanik*, Olcay HisarFisheries Department, Agricultural Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey(Received 5.12.02, Accepted 18.5.03)Key words: hatchery performance, hybrid, Salmo trutta fario, Salvelinus alpinus, survivalAbstractAn allelic cross between Salmo trutta fario and Salvelinus alpinus was carried out under con-trolled hatchery conditions. Survival to the eyed stage was significantly lower for the hybrid thanfor both purebreds. There were significant differences in survival in the eyed and yolk sac stagesand from fertilization to the first feeding (p<0.05) between the hybrid and the purebreds, whilethe differences between the purebreds were not significant (p>0.05). The hybrid did not displayheterosis with respect to any hatchery property. During the first 45 days of nursing, there weresignificant differences between the purebreds and the hybrid in terms of weight gain, survival,feed conversion ratio and specific growth rate (p<0.05) with no significant differences betweenthe purebreds (p>0.05). The hybrid was slightly heterotic (+1.69) with respect to survival how-ever no heterosis was observed in any other property to the first feeding stage.IntroductionThe high market value of salmonids has gen-erated substantial interest among fish farmers.However, Turkish customers prefer wildsalmonid species due to their taste and color.The lack of good-quality seed is one of themajor constraints to the development andexpansion of farmed salmonid species. Wildfish such as Salvelinus spp. and Salmo truttaspp. could partially replace farmed rainbowtrout on Turkish markets (Memis et al., 2002)*  Corresponding author. E-mail: talatyanik@yahoo.com-d155and intraspecific cross-breeding of selectedsalmonid populations, i.e., S. trutta fario and S.alpinus, may produce a faster growing breedwith a higher survival rate for aquaculture.To produce an alternative and productivestrain of salmonid, an allelic cross between S.trutta fario and S. alpinus was carried outunder controlled hatchery conditions. Earlydevelopment, growth and heterosis of thehybrid to the first exogenous feeding stagewere examined.Materials and MethodsTwo experiments were conducted. In experi-ment 1, two species of salmonids, brown trout(S. trutta fario) and arctic charr (S. alpinus),were hybridized under controlled hatcheryconditions at the Fishery DepartmentResearch and Extension Center of theAgricultural Faculty of Ataturk University inErzurum, Turkey.The brown trout were captured from theGreen River, a cold river in the village ofYesilyayla, Dumlu Province, near Erzurum(39.55°N, 42.31°E), in October 1998. Arcticcharr were obtained from a local fish farm inErzurum. Mature fish were kept separately infour fiberglass tanks (1 m diameter, 1 mdepth); each tank contained ten mature fish,either male or female, of one of the species.The fish were fed a commercial diet of 45%protein and 12% fat at a daily ration of 1% oftheir wet body weight. Milt and eggs wereobtained from three randomly chosen femalesand males of each species by applying gentlepressure to the abdominal wall. Dry fertiliza-tion was done in bowls to produce purebred S.alpinus (Sa™ x Sa¢), purebred S. trutta fario(St™ x St¢) and an allelic hybrid (St™ x Sa¢). The eggs were incubated in three hatchingtrays containing 1500-3500 eggs, each. At theeye stage, the exact number of eggs in eachtray was counted. After that, the trays wereobserved daily. Dead eggs and deformed anddead fry were recorded and discarded.Survival rates to the first feeding stage weredetermined by counting the fry remaining ineach tray (Yanik et al., 2002). Survival wascalculated according to formulas used byKötzner (1978), Refstie (1978) and Yanik andAras (1994):- survival to eyed stage (%) = (number of eyedeggs/total number of incubated eggs) x 100;- survival in eyed stage (%) = (number ofhatched fry/total number of eyed eggs) x 100;- survival in yolk sac stage (%) = (number ofswim-up fry/total number of yolk sac fry) x100;- survival to first feeding (%) = (number ofswim-up fry/total number of incubated eggs) x100.The eggs were treated according toJonsson and Svavarsson (2000). Aeratedartesian water was provided at 1 l/min, 8.5°C,7.5 pH and 10.2 mg/l dissolved oxygen.In experiment 2, the growth, feed conver-sion, weight gain and survival of alevins wascompared when the first exogenous feedingstage (yolk sac absorbed) was reached,using formulas provided by Steffens (1989).Initially, fry were acclimatized for four days intanks. Ninety fry of each species and hybrid(a total of 270) were stocked randomly innine disinfected circular fiberglass tanks (50cm diameter, 40 cm water depth) with awater inflow of 1.2 l/min. The experiment wascarried out in three replicates with 30 fry pertank. Fry were fed a diet of 51% protein,17.15% fat, 93.93% dry matter, and 9.3%ash to satiation, three times a day. The quan-tity of given feed was recorded. The experi-mented lasted 45 days during which mortali-ty was recorded. Fish were weighed collec-tively twice a month to the nearest 0.01 g andwere not fed during these days. Heterosis ofthe hybrid was determined based on the for-mula of Nguenga et al. (2000): heterosis (%)= {H – [(P1 + P2)/2]/[(P1 + P2)/2]} x 100, whereH is the mean weight (or survival rate) of thehybrid and P1 and P2 are the mean weights(or survival rates) of the two purebreeds. Statistical analysis. Fertilization, hatchingand survival to first feeding rates were com-pared using the Chi square test. A one wayanalysis of variance (ANOVA) followed byDuncan’s multiple range test was used todetermine significant differences amongmeans at first feeding (p<0.05). Hatchery performance of two purebred trout species and their hybridResultsIn experiment 1, the survival rate in all stageswas significantly lower for the hybrid than thepurebreds while the differences between thepurebreds were not significant (Table 1). Noheterosis was observed in the hybrid com-pared to either purebred species for anyhatchery property.In experiment 2, there were differencesbetween the purebreds and the hybrid in allparameters (Table 2). Although, the differencein survival was not significant, the hybrid dis-played a slight heterosis (+1.69) in this para-meter. Growth is shown in Fig. 1.DiscussionSurvival at all stages was significantly lower inthe hybrid than in the purebred in experiment1. Survival can be affected by environmentalfactors and genotype (Huet, 1971; Akyurt,1992) or maternal effects on the early devel-opment of salmonids (Guo et al., 1990;Poxton, 1991). Maternal effects include differ-ences among females in egg size or quality(Gjedrem, 1992). It is important to knowwhether or not a genotype-environment inter-action affected results. No interaction meansthat the ranking of animals or strains accord-ing to breeding value is the same for differentenvironments. If there is a genotype-environ-ment interaction, strains should be developedfor each environment. In the present study,this interaction was negligible since all fishwere treated in the same controlled environ-ment. Therefore, the differences likely derivedfrom egg quality, which can vary greatlyamong salmonids (Hershberger, 1992), orgenotype (Huet, 1971).Survival in all stages differed from earlierstudies. For instance, Kötzner (1978) reportedlower survival of 68% for the hybrid (Sa™ xSa¢), 53% for S. trutta fario and 75% for S.alpinus), heterosis to the eyed stage and25%, 45% and 58% survival in the eyedstage, respectively. Refstie and Gjerdem(1975) reported a higher (72%) survival for thehybrid. No heterosis was reported for thehybrids (Sa™ x Sa¢) with respect to hatcherytraits by either Kötzner (1978) or Refstie(1978). Possible reasons for the contradictoryresults regarding survival may be differencesin breeding history, age of breeders, domesti-cated and wild strains. These properties mayvary according to the initial quality of thegametes (Kjørsvik and Lønning, 1983) or sea-sonal climatic changes (Richter et al, 1987;Freund et al., 1995). The survival, weight gain, specific growthrate and feed conversion rate of the hybridswere significantly lower than those of thepurebreds at the first feeding stage. The rea-son may be maternal effects (Guo et al., 1990;Blanc et al., 2000). It has been reported thatheterotic effects may not always occur inhybridization studies (Klupp, 1979; Ayles andBaker, 1983; Hörstgen-Schwark et al., 1986). In terms of feed consumption and in con-trast to the findings of the present study,Fricke et al. (1984) reported that hybrid troututilized more feed than purebred. Similarly, inrainbow trout, feed consumption of hybridswas better (Gjerde, 1988).Ayles and Baker (1983) observed hetero-sis among only six of 24 groups of rainbowtrout strains and hybrids in terms of live weightgain. On the other hand, Hörstgen-Schwark etal. (1986) found no differences betweenhybrid and purebred rainbow trout. Gall(1975) and Gjerde (1988) reported higher liveweight gains in hybrid than in purebred rain-bow trout. In the present study, althoughhybrids had low hatchery performance, theycould compete with arctic charr in terms ofgrowth (Fig. 1). Further work should be con-ducted to elucidate this pointAlthough no significant differences wereobserved with respect to survival at the firstexogenous feeding stage, the hybrids exhibit-ed a slight heterosis (+1.69). Similarly, a high-er survival rate in hybrids was reported byPiggins (1970) and Suzuki and Fukuda(1971).The findings of this study show that thealevin yield at the start of first feeding waspoor in the hybrid, mainly because of anabnormally low fertilization rate (egg qualitymay be suspected) compared to the fertiliza-tion rate of the purebreds. The hybrid appearsto be a valuable candidate from the fish cul-ture perspective. The economic value of such156 Aras-Hisar et al.157hybrids will depend largely on geneticimprovement of embryonic and fry survival tothe first feeding stage. Further researchshould be conducted to test crossings of vari-ous strains of S. trutta fario and S. alpinus andimprove hybridization success. Since no suc-cessful production of fertile gametes has everbeen reported in hybrids among salmonids,implementation of selection programs in bothspecies should also progress. Hatchery performance of two purebred trout species and their hybridExperiment I Hybrid Brown trout Arctic charr(S. trutta purebred purebredfario ™ x (Salmo trutta (Salvelinus S. alpinus ¢) fario) alpinus)Incubation period (days) 44-52 44-48 45-54Survival to eyed stage (%) 75.36a 99.35b 99.50bSurvival in eyed stage (%) 35.56a 97.23b 97.76bYolk sac stage (days) 17 15 18Survival in yolk sac stage (%) 72.79a 98.84b 98.85bSurvival to first feeding (%) 19.50a 95.45b 95.17bWithin a row, values with different superscripts differ significantly (p< 0.05). Table 1. Productivity of two purebred trout and their hybrid from fertilization to first feeding.Experiment II Hybrid Brown trout Arctic charr(S. trutta purebred purebredfario ™ x (Salmo trutta (Salvelinus S. alpinus ¢) fario) alpinus)Initial weight (g) 0.78±0.04a 0.47±0.02b 0.79±0.07aFinal weight (g) 2.71±0.25a 1.90±0.04b 3.52±0.31cWeight gain (%) 245.56±15.24a 308.16±11.11b 348.07±10.45bFeed conversion ratio 1.26±0.06a 1.06±0.04b 0.98±0.02bSurvival (%) 100a 96.67±3.34a 100aSpecific growth rate (%) 2.75±0.10a 3.13±0.07b 3.21±0.26bWithin a row, values with different superscripts differ significantly (p< 0.05). Table 2. Means±standard deviations for productivity of two purebred trout and their hybridafter 45 days (in the first exogenous stage).ReferencesAkyurt I., 1992. Aynı Çevre Sartlarında IkiYerli Alabalık Alt Türünün (Salmo truttacaspius ve Salmo trutta macrostigma) BazıÜreme Özelliklerinin Karsılastırılması. Thecomparison of some reproductive traits of twoindigenous trout (Salmo trutta caspius andSalmo trutta macrostigma) held and incubatedin the same environmental conditions. J.Agric. College, Atatürk Univ., 23(2):138-148(in Turkish).Ayles G.B. and R.F. Baker, 1983. Geneticdifferences in growth and survival betweenstrains and hybrids of rainbow trout (Salmogairdneri) stocked in aquaculture lakes in theCanadian prairies. Aquaculture, 33:269-280.Blanc J.M., Vallée F. and M. Dorson, 2000.Survival, growth and dressing traits of triploidhybrids between rainbow trout and three charrspecies. Aquacult. Res., 31:349-358.Freund F., Hörstgen-Schwark G. and W.Holtz, 1995. Seasonality of the reproductivecycle of female Heterobranchus longifilis in158 Aras-Hisar et al.Average weight (g)DaysHybridBrown troutArctic charr43210Initial 15 30 45Fig. 1. Average weight (mean±SD) of two purebred trout and their hybrid (Salmo trutta fario ™x Salvelinus alpinus ¢) at the beginning of the first feeding stage (45 days).159tropical pond culture. Aquat. Living Resour.,8:297-302.Fricke H., Hörstgen-Schwark H., LangholzJ. and J.N. Meyer, 1984. The effect of straincrossing on the production performance introut. Commission of Animal Genetic Session6. 35th Annu. Meeting of the EAAP, August 6-9, The Hague, The Netherlands.Gall G.A.E., 1975. Genetics of reproduction indomesticated rainbow trout. J. Anim. Sci.,40:19-28.Gjerde B., 1988. Complete diallele crossbetween six inbred groups for rainbow trout(Salmo gairdneri). Aquaculture, 75:71-78.Gjedrem T., 1992. Breeding plans for rainbowtrout. Aquaculture, 100:73-78.Guo X., Herschberger K.W. and M.S.Myers, 1990. Growth and survival ofintrastrain and interstrain rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) triploids. J. WorldAquacult. Soc., 21(4):250-256.Hershberger W.K., 1992. Genetic variabilityin rainbow trout populations. Aquaculture,100:51-71.Hörstgen-Schwark G., Fricke H. and H.J.Langholz, 1986. The effect of strain crossingon the production performance in rainbowtrout. Aquaculture, 57:141-152.Huet M., 1971. Textbook of Fish Culture(Breeding and Cultivation of Fish). FishingNews Books Ltd., England. 448 pp.Jonsson B. and E. Svavarsson, 2000.Connection between egg size and early mor-tality in arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus).Aquaculture, 187(3-4):315-317.Kjørsvik E. and S. Lønning, 1983. Effects ofegg quality on normal fertilization and earlydevelopment of the cod, Gadus morhua L. J.Fish Biol., 23:1-12.Klupp R., 1979. Genetic variance for growthin rainbow trout. Aquaculture, 18:123-124.Kötzner B., 1978. Embriyonalen Twicklung-und Störung Bei Salmonideneiern. Institut fürTierzucht und Haustiergenetic, UniversitatGöttingen.Memis D., Demir N., Eroldogan O.T. and S.Kucuk, 2002. Aquaculture in Turkey. Israeli J.Aquacult. - Bamidgeh, 54(1):34-40.Nguenga D., Teugels G.G. and F. Ollevier,2002. Fertilization, hatching, survival andgrowth rates in reciprocal crosses of twostrains of an African catfish Heterobranchuslongifilis Valenciennes 1840 under controlledhatchery conditions. Aquacult. Res., 31:565-573.Piggins D.J., 1970. Salmon x sea trouthybrids. Salmon Res. Trust Ireland, Annu.Rep., 15:41-58.Poxton M.G., 1991. Incubation of salmoneggs and rearing of alevins: natural tempera-ture fluctuations and their influence on hatch-ery requirements. Aquacult. Eng., 10:31-53.Refstie T., 1978. Results of interspecificcrosses between salmonids. Europ. Verein. F.Tierzucht, 29. He Jahrestoggung, Stockholm,55.Refstie T. and T. Gjedrem, 1975. Hybridsbetween Salmonidae species. Hatchabilityand growth rate in the fresh water period.Aquaculture, 6:333-342.Richter C.J.J., Viveen W.J.A.R., Eding E.H.,Sukkel M., Rothuis A.J., Van HoofM.F.P.M., Van Den Bergh F.G.J. andP.G.W.J. Van Oordt, 1987. The significanceof photoperiodicity, water temperature andinherent endogenous rhythm for the produc-tion of viable eggs by the African catfish,Clarias gariepinus, kept in subtropical pondsin Israel and under Israeli and Dutch hatcheryconditions. Aquaculture, 63:169-185.Steffens W., 1989. pp. 27-41. In: Principles ofFish Nutrition. Ellis Horwood Ltd., John Wileyand Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane,Toronto.Suzuki R., and Y. Fukuda, 1971. Survivalpotential of F1 hybrids among salmonid fishes.Bull. Freshwater Fish. Res. Lab., 21:69-83.Yanik T. and M.S. Aras, 1994. Erzurum veVan gökkusagı alabalıkları yumurtalarınınçesitli yönlerden mukayeseleri. Comparisonbetween some traits of eggs stripped fromErzurum and Van rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) broodstock strains. J. Agricult. College,Atatürk Univ., 25(4):599-608 (in Turkish).Yanik T., Aras-Hisar S. and C. Bolukbasi,2002. Early development and growth of arcticcharr (Salvelinus alpinus) and rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) at a low water tem-perature. Israeli J. Aquacult. - Bamidgeh,54(2):73-78.Hatchery performance of two purebred trout species and their hybrid

Hatchery And Growth Performance of Two Trout Pure Breeds, Salvelinus Alpinus And Salmo Trutta Fario, And Their Hybrid

http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/19086/1/55_3_Yanik_trout.pdf

Hatchery And Growth Performance of Two Trout Pure Breeds, Salvelinus Alpinus And Salmo Trutta Fario, And Their Hybrid

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa