Success Stories In Asian Aquaculture - Library - Network of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

154 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaCenter of the Central Luzon State University, FAC-CLSU; and the MarineScience Institute of the University of the Philippines, UPMSI)] pursued a collaborativeprogram for the genetic improvement of tropical finfish using thetilapias as the test species in 1988. This program which came to be known as theGIFT project was conducted for over almost 10 years and addressed the followingobjectives: to (1) develop methods for genetic enhancement of tropical finfish; (2)develop improved breeds of Nile tilapia ( O. niloticus ); (3) build capacity ofnational institutions in aquaculture genetics research; (4) disseminate improvedstrain (GIFT strain); (5) carry out genetic, socioeconomic, and environmentalevaluation of GIFT; and (6) facilitate development of national tilapia breedingprograms (Eknath 1994) .Apart from the main partners, the project also established linkages with nationalinstitutions in Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal, the University of Hamburg(Germany), and the Musee Royale de l’Afrique Centrale (Belgium) for the collectionand successful transfer of pure tilapia stocks from Africa to Philippines. TheGIFT partnership was also expanded to include selected tilapia farmers inPhilippines who participated in on-farm experiments during the second phase ofthe project.8.4 Development of Improved Nile Tilapia StrainSeveral biotechnological techniques can be applied to farmed aquatic species forthe genetic enhancement and management of genetic resources. However,WorldFish Center and partners were extra cautious in the manner in which theGIFT research was conducted (Acosta and Williams 2001) . Emphasis was laid onchoosing a breeding program that is environment friendly, sustainable, and globallyacceptable. Primary consideration was made to ensure that research on GIFT wouldresult in a technology that is compatible with the needs and capacity of the developingcountries, and would give continued improvement and consequently maximumbenefits (both in the short-term and long-term). Also, the technology recognizesthat genetic enhancement and genetic conservation are interdependent and have tobe applied in a highly responsible manner.FAO (2001) cited the following factors that determine or influence the appropriatenessof the biotechnologies for application in developing countries: their environmentalimpact and their impact on human health; the status with respect tointellectual property rights; the status with respect to bio-security regulations andcontrols; the degree of access to the biotechnologies; the level of capacity buildingor resources required to use them; financial costs; their ethical dimension; and theirimpact on food productions and food security.It is for the abovementioned reason that the program on GIFT had chosen thetraditional selective breeding as the technological approach for genetic enhancement.The development of GIFT does not involve the transfer of genes from onespecies to another; hence, it is not genetically modified .
8 The Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapias Project: Impact and Lessons Learned1558.4.1 Establishment of a Base PopulationIn view of the poor genetic status of the Asian tilapia stocks and to establish a widegenetic base before starting the genetic improvement program, wild Nile tilapiapopulations were brought from Ghana, Egypt, Kenya,, and Senegal during 1988–1989. Four strains of tilapia being used by commercial farmers in Asia (from Israel,Singapore, Taiwan Province of China, and Thailand) were also used in the geneticimprovement program, bringing the total number of strains used in the program toeight (Eknath et al. 1993 ; Dey and Gupta 2000) .Performance of the pure bred and crossbred groups among the eight strainsmentioned earlier, was assessed, and based on their performance, 25 best performinggroups were selected to form a genetically mixed base population (syntheticpopulation), and the selection program was initiated (Eknath 1994, 1995 ; Eknathand Acosta 1998) . As the main problem in tilapia aquaculture in Asia was the deterioratinggrowth performance, selection for growth was identified as the primarytrait for the genetic improvement program.8.4.2 Selective Breeding MethodologyThe strategy followed by the GIFT project for selective breeding was a combinedbetween-family and within-family selection. The GIFT project ended in 1997, bywhich time, five generations of selection were undertaken. Eknath and Acosta(1998) and Eknath et al. (1998) indicated that an accumulated genetic gain of 85%over the base population with 12–17% gain per generation was achieved. ADB(2005) in its review of the GIFT project reported a genetic gain of 19.1, 13.5, 9.2,17.8, and 6.2% during the first five generations of improvement. WorldFish Center(Khaw et al. 2008) estimated the genetic change in GIFT fish by comparing thegrowth performance of the progeny produced from cryopreserved spermatozoafrom the base population with that produced by freshly collected spermatozoa fromthe ninth generation, and arrived at the estimated total genetic change in liveweight, which was 64% over nine generations or 7.1% per generation (Ponzoniet al. 2008) . They indicated that the reported higher genetic gain by Eknath et al.(1998) might be due to the inadvertent selection of fish to be mated as controls, andaccumulation of sampling problems during the selection.The selectively bred strain developed from the GIFT Project came to be known asthe GIFT strain (Plate 8.1 ). Studies have proven that the GIFT fish which is geneticallyimproved through selective breeding has a proven growth potential. Ponzoni et al.(2005) reported that despite several generations of selection undergone by the fish, thepopulation still has additive genetic variance to enable further improvement. This findingis supported by the selection response observed (10%) after just one round ofselection conducted in an experiment in Malaysia. Studies found that GIFT is asuperior Nile tilapia strain, from which farmers can benefit due to its fast growth rate.
Page 1 and 2:
Sena S. De SilvaF. Brian DavyEditor
Page 3 and 4:
Sena S. De Silva ●EditorsF.Brian
Page 5 and 6:
ForewordWorld aquaculture has grown
Page 7 and 8:
PrefaceWe are moving into a turbule
Page 9 and 10:
Prefaceix• Provide a direction fo
Page 11 and 12:
Contents1 Aquaculture Successes in
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1Aquaculture Successes in A
Page 15 and 16:
1 Aquaculture Successes in Asia: Co
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 2Recent Developments in Ric
Page 29 and 30:
2 Recent Developments in Rice-Fish
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 3Shrimp Farmers in India: E
Page 55 and 56:
3 Shrimp Farmers in India: Empoweri
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59:
Page 62 and 63:
50 N.R. Umesh et al.GoalSUSTAINABLE
Page 64 and 65:
52 N.R. Umesh et al.• The optimum
Page 66 and 67:
54 N.R. Umesh et al.in five states
Page 68 and 69:
56 N.R. Umesh et al.3.5.2.4 Facilit
Page 70 and 71:
58 N.R. Umesh et al.3.7 Opportuniti
Page 72 and 73:
60 N.R. Umesh et al.with similar ou
Page 74 and 75:
62 N.R. Umesh et al.• Knowledge a
Page 76 and 77:
64 N.R. Umesh et al.helping small f
Page 78 and 79:
66 N.R. Umesh et al.ReferencesFAO/N
Page 80 and 81:
68 H. Kongkeo and F.B. DavyPlate 4.
Page 82 and 83:
70 H. Kongkeo and F.B. DavyTable 4.
Page 84 and 85:
72 H. Kongkeo and F.B. Davytrate th
Page 86 and 87:
74 H. Kongkeo and F.B. Davylack of
Page 88 and 89:
76 H. Kongkeo and F.B. Davyby incre
Page 90 and 91:
78 H. Kongkeo and F.B. Davysoil ana
Page 92 and 93:
80 H. Kongkeo and F.B. Davy• Deva
Page 94 and 95:
82 H. Kongkeo and F.B. DavyTable 4.
Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 5Cage Fish Culture: An Alte
Page 98 and 99:
5 Cage Fish Culture: An Alternative
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: Chapter 6Enhancing Rural Farmer Inc
Page 116 and 117: 6 Enhancing Rural Farmer Income thr
Page 142 and 143: Chapter 7Striped Catfish Aquacultur
Page 144 and 145: 7 Striped Catfish Aquaculture in Vi
Page 160 and 161: 150 B.O. Acosta and M.V. Gupta8.1 I
Page 162 and 163: 152 B.O. Acosta and M.V. Gupta8.2 W
Page 166 and 167: 156 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaPlate
Page 168 and 169: 158 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaThe I
Page 170 and 171: 160 B.O. Acosta and M.V. Guptainto
Page 172 and 173: 162 B.O. Acosta and M.V. Gupta8.6.2
Page 174 and 175: 164 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaIn Th
Page 176 and 177: 166 B.O. Acosta and M.V. Guptafarme
Page 178 and 179: 168 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaBox 8
Page 180 and 181: 170 B.O. Acosta and M.V. GuptaFitzs
Page 182 and 183: Chapter 9The Role of Exotics in Chi
Page 184 and 185: 9 The Role of Exotics in Chinese In
Page 196 and 197: 188 S.S. De Silva et al.part of an
Page 198 and 199: 190 S.S. De Silva et al.Box 10.1 A
Page 200 and 201: 192 S.S. De Silva et al.other appro
Page 202 and 203: 194 S.S. De Silva et al.• Effecti
Page 204 and 205: 196 S.S. De Silva et al.Table 10.1
Page 206 and 207: 198 S.S. De Silva et al.• Institu
Page 208 and 209: ContributorsBelen O. Acosta , BSc F
Page 210 and 211: Contributors203become more relevant
Page 212 and 213: Contributors205research on physiolo
Page 214 and 215:
IndexAAcosta, B., 155Agrarian Devel
Page 216 and 217:
Indexalternate rice fish farming, 2
Page 218 and 219:
IndexKKanna meeting, of FOs, 112Kul
Page 220 and 221:
IndexSSchizothorax spp. (Asla), 91,
Page 222:
Sena S. De SilvaF. Brian DavyEditor
show all

Success Stories In Asian Aquaculture - Library - Network of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?