Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | melvin-noel-horton |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Techniques to Develop Techniques to Develop Food-Sized SunfishFood-Sized Sunfish
Lincoln UniversityLincoln University
Charles E. HicksCharles E. Hicks
Principle InvestigatorPrinciple Investigator
*
Year OneYear One
• Bluegill from density studies graded Bluegill from density studies graded for largest fishfor largest fish
• Largest males and females selected Largest males and females selected and marked with PIT tagsand marked with PIT tags
• Largest males and females were Largest males and females were divided into four groups (9 males and divided into four groups (9 males and 15 females) and placed in spawning 15 females) and placed in spawning enclosures.enclosures.
• Compared the largest and smallest of Compared the largest and smallest of the four groups.the four groups.
Average Weight of Brood Fish Average Weight of Brood Fish for for Two FamiliesTwo Families
Males Females Males Females203.7 117.5 170.1 83.4
194.4 117.3 172.9 91.1
220.9 109.4 171.2 99.6
241.8 113.8 166.5 95.1
214.9 151.4 169.2 86.0
215.4 155.8 166.7 88.1
215.2 127.1 169.4 93.2
159.6 98.0
106.2 85.7
128.7 91.1
F1A F1D
Growth Test (F1A vs. F1D)Growth Test (F1A vs. F1D)
• Progeny brought into recycle system Progeny brought into recycle system (8 tank system, 2 families 4 replicates)(8 tank system, 2 families 4 replicates)
• Fed two weeks ad. lib.Fed two weeks ad. lib.• Remainder of test fed/auto feeders at Remainder of test fed/auto feeders at
3% of body weight3% of body weight• Sampled monthly (random grab) Sampled monthly (random grab)
length-weight of individual fish takenlength-weight of individual fish taken• Test completed in April 2005Test completed in April 2005
Comparison of Two FamiliesComparison of Two Families
FEBRUARY SAMPLING
2523
2824
2018 16 17
05
1015202530
1 2 3 4
Tank Number
We
igh
t in
Gra
ms
F1A
F1D
Results of Comparison TestResults of Comparison Test((p < 0.0001)p < 0.0001)
Growth of Two Selected Families
1525 33
4457
12 18 2232
44
020406080
1 2 3 4 5Sampling Period
Weig
ht in
Gr
ams Family F1A
Family F1D
Year TwoYear Two
• F2 CrossesF2 Crosses– P1 Females x F1 MalesP1 Females x F1 Males– F1 Females x P1 MalesF1 Females x P1 Males– F1 Females x F1 MalesF1 Females x F1 Males
• Indoor test was completed April, 2006
• Family specific marks applied
• Grow out in ponds
Means for Beginning and Means for Beginning and Ending WeightEnding Weight
Weight in Grams for Three Families
28 29 27
117125 119
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
F1 X P1 F1 X F1 P1 X F1
Family
Wei
gh
t in
Gra
ms
Bw eight
Ew eight
Family ComparisonsFamily Comparisons
• F1 x P1 vs. F1 x F1 (F1 x P1 vs. F1 x F1 (p > p > 0.0260)0.0260)
• F1 x F1 vs. P1 x F1 (F1 x F1 vs. P1 x F1 (pp > 0.0537) > 0.0537)
• F1 x P1 vs. P1 x F1 (F1 x P1 vs. P1 x F1 (pp > 0.6040) > 0.6040)
Pond Grow-outPond Grow-out
• During final weighing and measuring all During final weighing and measuring all fish were marked with family specific fish were marked with family specific visible injected elastomer (VIE) visible injected elastomer (VIE)
• Fish were released into four 0.04 ha pondsFish were released into four 0.04 ha ponds– 200 fish from each family per pond.200 fish from each family per pond.– 600 fish / pond600 fish / pond
• End of growing season all fish are End of growing season all fish are identified by family, weighed and identified by family, weighed and measured.measured.
Observing MarksObserving Marks
Pond Harvest 2006Pond Harvest 2006
• 44% No Observable Mark44% No Observable Mark
• 64% Survival in Pond 764% Survival in Pond 7– Most loss due to predaceous birdsMost loss due to predaceous birds
• 50% Reached Target Weight (227-50% Reached Target Weight (227-340 g)340 g)– 88% Males Reach Target Weight88% Males Reach Target Weight
• Average Weight of Males 281 gramsAverage Weight of Males 281 grams
2006 Pond Harvest2006 Pond Harvest
Weightof Fish in Grams
280 283 274
177 177 173
227
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
F1 X F1 P1 X F1 F1 X P1 Target Wt.
Families
Wei
gh
t in
Gra
ms
Males
Females
Target Weight
Year Three 2007Year Three 2007
• Three different sires per brood per Three different sires per brood per familyfamily– Mated in laboratoryMated in laboratory
• P1P1♀♀ X P1 X P1 ♂♂ vs. F2 vs. F2 ♀♀ X F2 X F2 ♂♂
• Rear in recycle system (120 days)Rear in recycle system (120 days)– Target 133 g / fishTarget 133 g / fish
Midterm Weight by FamilyMidterm Weight by Family((p < 0.0001)p < 0.0001)
Midterm Weight by Family
91 93 96
44
67 59
0204060
80100120
F3a F3b F3c F1a F1b F1c
Family
Wei
gh
t in
Gra
ms
Year Three Midpoint Year Three Midpoint SamplingSampling((p<0.0001)p<0.0001)
Comparison of F1 vs. F3
93
56
0
20
40
60
80
100
F3 F1
Family
Wei
gh
t in
Gra
ms
Year Three: Pond Grow-outYear Three: Pond Grow-out
• Each fish individually marked with PIT tagEach fish individually marked with PIT tag• Stocked in four ponds (6,000/acre)Stocked in four ponds (6,000/acre)
– Individuals from each group stocked in each Individuals from each group stocked in each pondpond
• Fish fed twice daily floating trout feed in Fish fed twice daily floating trout feed in feeding ringsfeeding rings
• Randomized block design (individuals Randomized block design (individuals within families are replicates).within families are replicates).
• Fish harvested in OctoberFish harvested in October– All fish weighed, measured and identified by All fish weighed, measured and identified by
PIT tag numberPIT tag number
Pond Grow-out Pond Grow-out Beginning Weight F3 vs. F1Beginning Weight F3 vs. F1
Family Comparison Beginning Weight
168 168 172
108119 125
0
50
100
150
200
F3a F3b F3c F1a F1b F1c
Family
Wei
gh
t in
Gra
ms
Pond Grow-outPond Grow-out
Ending Weight328
287323
228258
294
227
050
100150200250300350
F3a F3b F3c F1a F1b F1c
Targe
t Weig
ht
Family
Wei
gh
t in
gra
ms
Ending Weight F3 vs. F1Ending Weight F3 vs. F1
Means of F1 vs. F3 Pond Grow-out
277348
234286
227
0
100
200
300
400
F3♀ F3♂ F1♀ F1♂ TargetWeight
Family and Sex
Num
ber o
f Gra
ms
What Did We LearnWhat Did We Learn
• Selecting the largest brood-fish: Selecting the largest brood-fish: – produces the largest progeny within a year-class. produces the largest progeny within a year-class. – eliminates small males (eliminates small males (sneakers & satellites).sneakers & satellites).
• VIE tags are not reliableVIE tags are not reliable• By year three over all size increased By year three over all size increased
significantlysignificantly• Can reach target weights within 18 months if Can reach target weights within 18 months if
selective breeding techniques are used.selective breeding techniques are used.• Culture methods are important (indoor Culture methods are important (indoor
rearing phase must be included).rearing phase must be included).
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
• USDA-CSREES Evans Allen Grant for USDA-CSREES Evans Allen Grant for supporting work.supporting work.
• Lincoln UniversityLincoln University
• Dr. Mark Ellersieck, MU for statistical Dr. Mark Ellersieck, MU for statistical assistance.assistance.
• Lincoln University PersonnelLincoln University Personnel– Russell Gerlach, Dr. Jim Wetzel, Cindy BorgwordtRussell Gerlach, Dr. Jim Wetzel, Cindy Borgwordt
• Leslie Hearne, Chris Scheppers, Adam StampLeslie Hearne, Chris Scheppers, Adam Stamp
• Dr. Robert Pierce, MU Fisheries and WildlifeDr. Robert Pierce, MU Fisheries and Wildlife
Contact InformationContact Information
•Charles HicksCharles HicksOffice: George Washington Carver FarmOffice: George Washington Carver Farm
Telephone Number: 681-5540Telephone Number: 681-5540
E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]