Hatchery traits and growth of eggs and fry of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, and arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, were tested in fresh water of a low temperature. There were significant differences (p<0.05) between the survival rates from fertilization through the eyed stage and the first exogenous feeding. No significant differences were observed between species with regard to feed conversion or survival of fry at the end of the 154-day trial, but weight gain and specific growth rate differed significantly (p<0.05). These results suggest that the arctic charr could be considered an alternative to rainbow trout, particularly in coldwater farms

Bölükbasi, Canan

Hisar, Sükriye Aras

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 54(2), 2002, 73-78. 73EARLY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF ARCTIC CHARR(SALVELINUS ALPINUS) AND RAINBOW TROUT(ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS) AT A LOW WATER TEMPERATURETelat Yanik* and Sükriye Aras HisarFisheries Department, Agricultural Faculty, Atatürk University, 25240 Erzurum, TurkeyCanan BölükbasiAnimal Sciences Department, Agricultural Faculty, Atatürk University, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey(Received 17.2.02, Accepted 25.4.02)Key words: arctic charr, growth, low water temperature, rainbow trout, survivalAbstractHatchery traits and growth of eggs and fry of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, and arcticcharr, Salvelinus alpinus, were tested in fresh water of a low temperature. There were significantdifferences (p<0.05) between the survival rates from fertilization through the eyed stage and thefirst exogenous feeding. No significant differences were observed between species with regardto feed conversion or survival of fry at the end of the 154-day trial, but weight gain and specificgrowth rate differed significantly (p<0.05). These results suggest that the arctic charr could beconsidered an alternative to rainbow trout, particularly in coldwater farms.IntroductionRainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, is themost extensively cultured fish in Turkey aswell as globally. Nevertheless, other low-priced cultured salmonids are available year-round and a steady supply of these fish canbe guaranteed. The arctic charr, Salvelinusalpinus, is not endemic in Turkey. However, incountries such as Canada it has been cul-tured for many decades both to enhance sportfisheries and as food fish (Guillou et al.,1995). Turkish customers seem to prefer wildspecies because of their taste and color.Consequently, chances are that wild fish suchas Salvelinus spp. can partially replace rain-bow trout in Turkish markets.In Turkey, rainbow trout is the principal*  Corresponding author. E-mail: telatyanik@yahoo.com74cold freshwater fish cultured for food con-sumption. It is sold at competitive prices rang-ing from $2.14 to $2.50 per kg live weight inTurkey (Yanik and Aras, 1999) and at $2.47-2.72 in the USA (Johnson, 1998). Yet, manyrainbow trout farmers believe that if wildspecies such as the arctic charr could be cul-tured, they would eventually occupy a cate-gory of their own and obtain higher retailprices.Salvelinus spp. have a higher tolerance tolow dissolved oxygen concentrations and to agreater range in pH (4.0 to 9.8) than rainbowtrout (McClane, 1974). The optimum tempera-ture for rearing Salvelinus spp. is 7.5-12.5°C.Rainbow trout grow best at 15-16°C andgrowth declines when temperatures reach thevicinity of 4°C (Piper et al., 1982; Stevenson,1987). Hatching, growth, survival and feedefficiency of salmonids, from the egg stage tothe table stage, have already been studied(Okutan, 1972; Canyurt, 1977; Özdemir,1980; Karatas, 1991;Yanık and Aras, 1991;Bromage et al., 1992; Yanık and Aras, 1994).In some studies, wild fish performed betterthan rainbow trout. For instance, a winter pro-duction trial at Virginia State Universityrevealed that brook trout consumed feed bet-ter in cold water conditions than rainbow trout(Newton, 1997). In Canada, brook trout hadbetter growth rates and less size variabilitythan other salmonids (Dumas et al., 1995).Rainbow trout does not actively feed at tem-peratures below 8°C. Therefore, rainbow troutculture in temperate zones may be limitedduring winter, when low water temperaturesprevent feeding some 60-90 days per year(Tidwell et al., 1991). This research was conducted to demon-strate to farmers the potential of culturing arc-tic charr instead of rainbow trout from theviewpoint of fertilization, hatching, survivaland growth.Materials and MethodsExperiment 1. Arctic charr, shipped fromFrance, were reared intensively on a localfarm. Rainbow trout of the same age werereared intensively in our farm, located in theResearch and Extension Center of theFishery Department at the College ofAgriculture of the University of Atatürk inErzurum.The fish were used to produce eggs andmilt for induced spawning. Experiments weredone in three replicates. Eggs were treated asin Jonsson and Svavarsson (2000). Aeratedartesian water with 1 l/min inflow, 8.5°C tem-perature, 7.5 pH and 10.2 mg/l dissolved oxy-gen was used. The eggs were incubated inthe hatchery of the Research and ExtensionCenter in six hatching trays with approximate-ly 1000 eggs each. At the eyed stage, theexact number of eggs in each tray was count-ed. After that, 500 eggs from each tray weremonitored to determine hatching properties.Trays were observed daily and dead eggs aswell as deformed and dead fry were discard-ed. Survival rates to the first feeding stagewere determined by counting the fry remain-ing in each tray (Yanik and Aras, 1994). Experiment 2. Growth, feed conversionand survival of fry from the two species werecompared. Fry were acclimatized for fourdays in tanks. Ninety fry from each species (atotal of 180) were stocked randomly into sixcircular fiberglass tanks (three replicates con-taining 30 fry per tank). The tanks were 50 cm(diameter) by 40 cm (water depth) andreceived 1.2 l/min of disinfected water. The fryreceived a pelleted diet containing 51% pro-tein, 17.15% fat, 93.93% dry matter and 9.3%ash. They were fed to satiation three times aday and the quantity of feed was recorded.Fish were weighed collectively twice a monthon a scale with an accuracy of 0.01 g andwere not fed on those days. The experimentlasted 154 days (140 feeding days) duringwhich mortality was recorded.Statistical analysis. In experiment 1, therates of fertilization, hatching and survival tofirst feeding were calculated. In experiment 2,the specific growth, feed conversion and sur-vival rates were calculated. All data were ana-lyzed using a one-way analysis of variancewith the SAS Statistics Package Program,version 6.11, followed by the Duncan’s multi-ple range test to determine significant differ-ences among means at the α = 0.05 level(Duncan, 1971).Yanik et al.ResultsExperiment 1. Mean survival (Table 1) to theeyed stage of the arctic charr was significant-ly (F=28.75, p<0.05) higher (98.4%) than thatof the rainbow trout (94.93%). However, therewere no significant differences in average sur-vival during the eyed (F=0.09) and yolk sac(F=0.71, p>0.05) stages. The cumulative sur-vival from fertilization to first feeding differedsignificantly (F=28.75, p<0.05) between arcticcharr (97.07%) and rainbow trout (93.27%).The duration of incubation for the rainbowtrout was 30-36 days and for the arctic charr39-49 days. The yolk sac stage for the rain-bow trout was 19-21 days and for the arcticcharr 25-28 days. Experiment 2. The weight gain and feedconversion, specific growth and survival ratesof the rainbow trout and the arctic charr arepresented in Table 2. Growth is shown in Fig.1. The initial average weights of the rainbowtrout and arctic charr were 1.54 and 0.79 g,respectively, and significantly differed(F=297.86, p<0.05) from each other. So didthe final average weights, 20.22 and 14.82 g(F=9.88, p<0.05), and weight gains, 1211.35and 1786.72 (F=21.93, p<0.05). The meansurvival rate of both species was high,92.22% for the rainbow trout and 97.78% forthe arctic charr. Survival did not differ signifi-cantly between the species (F=1.47, p>0.05).The average specific growth rate of the rain-bow trout was 1.67, significantly different(F=18.62, p<0.05) from that of the arctic charrwhich was 1.91. DiscussionTemperature is a vital factor for incubationand hatching. It was suggested that the opti-mal temperature range for rainbow trout is 10-12°C (Stevenson, 1987). However, Bardachet al. (1972) reported successful hatchingresults with water temperatures of 8-13°C anda dissolved oxygen concentration of at least 7ppm. Therefore, the low water temperatureused in this study may have caused the slight-ly lower survival of eggs and fry of the rain-bow trout as compared to the arctic charr. The difference in egg size between thetwo species might also have caused the dif-ference in survival rate from fertilization to theeyed stage. However, previous works indicatecontroversial results between egg size andearly survival rate in salmonids (Gall, 1974)and arctic charr (Wallace and Aasjord, 1984;Jonsson and Svavarsson, 2000). No correla-tion was found between egg size and embry-onic survival to hatching in brook trout(Hutchings, 1991). 75Growth of arctic charr and rainbow trout at low temperatureRainbow trout Arctic charrIncubation duration (days) 30-36 39-49Survival to eyed stage (%) 94.93±1.10a 98.4±0.40bSurvival during eyed stage (%) 98.91±1.03a 99.05±0.92aYolk sac stage (days) 19-21 25-28Survival in yolk sac stage (%) 99.43±0.25a 99.59±0.21aSurvival to first feeding (%) 93.27±0.81a 97.07±0.92bTable 1. Comparison of survival of rainbow trout and arctic charr from fertilization to firstfeeding.Means in a row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).76The survival rates of the rainbow trout tothe eyed stage were in accordance with thework of Jonsson and Svavarsson (2000). Thevalues were higher than those reported byYanık and Aras (1994) although theirresearch was conducted in the same researchcenter, with the same water temperature.However, Yanık and Aras (1994) used rectan-gular concrete troughs of 145 x 45 x 35 cminstead of fiberglass tanks. Perhaps, the tankform and dimensions affected the early sur-vival rates of these fish. On the other hand,the survival rates of the arctic charr to the firstfeeding stage in this study and in the findingsof Jonsson and Svavarsson (2000) were high-er than those of the rainbow trout and thosereported by Yanık and Aras (1994). This couldsuggest that, in low temperatures, arctic charreggs have a better hatchability than do thoseof the rainbow trout.In experiment 2, the average weight gainof the arctic charr was higher than that of therainbow trout and statistically different. Thiscan be explained by the low water tempera-ture. The temperature averaged 8.5°Cthroughout the investigation and, therefore,was below the optimum for rainbow trout butquite adequate for Salvelinus species (Piperet al., 1982). The average growth rates werein accordance with the findings of Yanık andAras (1999) and Coyle and Tidwell (2000). The feed conversion ratio of the arcticcharr was better than that of the rainbow troutbut not statistically different. Average survivalrates were similar to those reported by Coyleand Tidwell (2000), but higher than thosereported by Yanık and Aras (1994). The specific growth rates in this study(1.91% for arctic charr and 1.67% for rainbowtrout) were in accordance with the findings ofArndt et al. (1998) but higher than reported byTidwell et al. (1991) for rainbow trout (0.7%)and by Coyle and Tidwell (2000) for brook trout(1.4%). The controversial results may be attrib-uted to the growing stage that was studied.This study indicates that, under the sameenvironmental conditions, the early growthrates of rainbow trout and arctic charr are sim-ilar and that the latter could eventually substi-tute rainbow trout in culture. Nevertheless,further investigation on the growth rates oflater stages is required before final conclu-sions can be drawn. Further investigations arealso required to establish the hatchery proper-ties of salmonids. ReferencesArndt R.E., Wagner E.J., Routledge M.D.and Q.A. Bradwisch, 1998. Hatchery perfor-mance and fish health of cutthroat rainbowtrout hand-fed or demand-fed a floating feed.J. Appl. Aquacult., 8(3):41-49.Yanik et al.Rainbow trout Arctic charrInitial weight (g) 1.54±0.02a 0.79±0.07bFinal weight (g) 20.22±2.76a 14.82±1.11bWeight gain (%) 1211.35±189.47a 1786.72±96.94bFeed conversion ratio 1.63±0.05a 1.53±0.05aSurvival (%) 92.22±6.94a 97.78±3.85aSpecific growth rate (%) 1.67±0.09a 1.91±0.03bMeans in a row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).Table 2. Weight gain, feed conversion ratio, survival and specific growth rate of rainbow andarctic charr after 154 days of trial (140 feeding days).Bardach J.E., Ryther J.H. and W.O.McLarney, 1972. Aquaculture. The Farmingand Husbandry of Freshwater and MarineOrganisms. John Wiley, New York. 868 pp.Bromage N., Jones J., Randall C., ThrushM., Davies B., Springate J., Duston J. andM. Baker, 1992. Brood stock management,fecundity, egg quality and the timing of eggproduction in rainbow trout (O. mykiss)Aquaculture, 100:141-166.Canyurt M.A., 1977. Yavru som balıgı (Salmosalar L.) yetistiriciligi ile ilgili bazı parametrelerüzerine arastırmalar. TÜBITAK VI. BilimKongresi, Tebligi. 17-21 Ekim, Ankara.Coyle S.D. and J.H. Tidwell, 2000.Production characteristics of rainbow trout,(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brook trout(Salvelinus fontinalis) under seasonal pondconditions. J. Appl. Aquacult., 10(1):37-43.Dumas S., Blanc J.M., Audet C. and J. de laNoue, 1995. Variation in yolk absorption andearly growth of brook charr (Salvelinus fonti-nalis, Mitchill), arctic charr, (Salvelinus alpi-nus, L.), and their hybrids. Aquacult. Res.,26:759-764.Duncan D.B., 1971. Multiple range and multi-ple F-tests. Biometrics, 11:313-323.Gall G.A.E., 1974. Influence of size of eggsand age of female on hatchability and growthin rainbow trout. Calif. Fish Game, 6:26-35.Guillou A., Soucy J., Khalil M. and L.Adambounou, 1995. Effects of dietary veg-etable and marine lipid on growth, musclefatty acid composition and organoleptic quali-ty of flesh of brook charr (Salvelinus fonti-nalis). Aquaculture, 136:351-362.Hutchings J.A., 1991. Fitness consequencesof variation in egg size and food abundance inbrook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Evolution,45:1162-1168.Johnson H.M., 1998. Annual Report on theUnited States Seafood Industry. H.M.Johnson & Assoc., Bellevue, Washington.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.Karatas M., 1991. Gürüz su ürünleri istasyo-nunda yetistirilen gökkusagı alabalıklarının(O. mykiss) yumurta verimi ve çıkıs gücü77Growth of arctic charr and rainbow trout at low temperature2520151050DaysAverage weight (g)Rainbow troutArctic charr15 30 45 61 76 92 107 123 137 1540Fig. 1. Average weight (mean±SD) of rainbow trout and arctic charr during 154 day trial at a constanttemperature of 8.5°C.78üzerine bir arastırma. Tokat Ziraat Fak. Derg.,1(2):179-184.McClane A.J., 1974. McClane’s New StandardFishing Encyclopedia. Holt, Rinehart andWinston Inc., New York.Newton S.H., 1997. 1996-97 winter trout pro-duction. Aquaculture Mag., 23:25-26.Okutan C., 1972. Soguk su balıkları üretimi.Balık ve Balıkçılık Derg., 20(2):17-22.Özdemir N., 1980. Gökkusagı (O. mykiss), vedere alabalıklarının (S. fontinalis) bazı verimözellikleri üzerine arastırmalar. TÜBITAK VII.Bilim Kongresi, Vet. ve Hay. Arastırma GrubuTebligleri 29 Eylül-3 Ekim, Istanbul.Piper R.G., McElwain I.B., Orme L.E.,McCraren J.P., Fowler L.G. and J.R.Leonard, 1982. Fish Hatchery Management.US Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, DC. Stevenson J.P., 1987. Trout Farming Manual,2nd Ed. Fishing New Books, Farnham, Surrey.259 pp.Tidwell J.H., Webster C.D. and R.S. Knaub,1991. Seasonal production of rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) in pondsusing different feeding practices. Aquacult.Fish. Management, 22:335-341.Yanık T. and M.S. Aras, 1991. Erzurum veVan gökkusagı alabalıgı (O. mykiss) yavruhatlarının aynı sartlarda yasama gücü yemdegerlendirme ve büyüme bakımındankarsılastırılmaları üzerine arastırmalar. pp.249-261. In: Egitiminin 10. Yılında Su ÜrünleriSempozyumu. 12-14 Kasım, Izmir.Yanık T. and M.S. Aras, 1994. Comparisonbetween some traits of eggs stripped fromErzurum and Van rainbow trout (Oncorhyn-chus mykiss) broodstock strains. J. Agric.College at Atatürk Univ., 25(4):599-608.Yanık T. and M.S. Aras, 1999. Economicalanalyzes of replacing slaughterhouse by-product meals in salmonid (Oncorhynchusmykiss) fry diets. Turkish J. Vet. Animal Sci.,23(1):155-160.Wallace J.C. and D. Aasjord, 1984. Aninvestigation of the consequences of egg sizefor the culture of arctic charr (Salvelinus alpi-nus L.). J. Fish Biol., 24:427-435.Yanik et al.

Early Development And Growth Of Arctic Charr (Salvelinus Alpinus) And Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) At A Low Water Temperature

http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/19049/1/54_2_Yanik.pdf

Early Development And Growth Of Arctic Charr (Salvelinus Alpinus) And Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) At A Low Water Temperature

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa