Breeding

  • Craig S. Tucker
  • Edwin H. Robinson

Abstract

The performance of modern livestock and poultry far exceeds that of their ancestors. Improved production efficiencies are largely attributable to breeding programs based on genetic theory. Commercial channel catfish culture lags far behind most other farm animal culture in using genetic improvement programs to increase productivity, despite indications from research (summarized by Dunham and Smitherman 1987) that considerable progress can be made. Failure to implement long-term genetic improvement programs is due in large part to the relatively recent development of the channel catfish farming industry. Catfish producers and researchers have focused primarily on short-term programs in nutrition, water quality management, and disease control to provide immediate increases in production. As the industry has matured and profit margins have decreased, the benefits of genetic improvement have become more obvious. Production efficiency cannot be optimized unless the biological potential of the fish is optimized.

Keywords

Additive Genetic Variance Channel Catfish Mass Selection Feed Conversion Efficiency Brood Stock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bidwell, C. A., C. L. Chrisman, and G. S. Libey. 1985. Polyploidy induced by heat shock in channel catfish. Aquaculture 51: 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bondari, K. 1983. Response to bidirectional selection for body weight in channel catfish. Aquaculture 33: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bondari, K. 1984. Comparative performance of albino and normally pigmented channel catfish in tanks, cages, and ponds. Aquaculture 37:293–301.Google Scholar
  4. Burch, E. P. 1986. Heritabilities for body weight, feed consumption, and feed conversion, and correlations among these traits in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Master’s Thesis, Auburn University, Alabama.Google Scholar
  5. Chappell, J. A. 1979. An evaluation of twelve genetic groups of catfish for suitability in commercial production. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.Google Scholar
  6. Chrisman, C. L., W. R. Wolters, and G. S. Libey. 1983. Triploidy in channel catfish. Journal of the World Mariculture Society 14:279–293.Google Scholar
  7. Dunham, R. A. 1981. Responses to selection and realized heritability for body weight in three strains of channel catfish grown in earthen ponds. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.Google Scholar
  8. Dunham, R. A., and R. O. Smitherman. 1983a. Response to selection and realized heritability for body weight in three strains of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, grown in earthen ponds. Aquaculture 33: 89–96.Google Scholar
  9. Dunham, R. A., and R. O. Smitherman. 1983b. Crossbreeding channel catfish for improvement of body weight in earthen ponds. Growth 47: 97–103.Google Scholar
  10. Dunham, R. A., and R. O. Smitherman. 1984. Ancestry and Breeding of Catfish in the United States, Circular 273. Auburn: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  11. Dunham, R. A., and R. O. Smitherman, eds. 1987. Genetics and Breeding of Catfish. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 325. Auburn: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  12. Dunham, R. A., M. Benchakan, R. O. Smitherman, and J. A. Chappell. 1983. Correlations among morphometric traits of 11-month-old blue, channel, white, and hybrid catfishes and relationship to dressing percentage at 18 months of age. Journal of the World Mariculture Society 14: 668–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Ibiary, H. M., and J. A. Joyce. 1978. Heritability of body size traits, dressing weight, and lipid content in channel catfish. Journal of Animal Science 47: 82–88.Google Scholar
  14. Goudie, C. A., B. D. Redner, B. A. Simco, and R. A. Davis. 1983. Feminization of channel catfish by oral administration of steroid sex hormones. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: 670–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heaton, E. K., T. S. Boggess, R. E. Worthington, and T. K. Hill. 1973. Quality comparisons of albino and regular (gray) channel catfish. Journal of Food Science 38: 1194–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kincaid, H. L., W. R. Bridges, and B. Von Limbach. 1977. Three generations of selection for growth rate in fall spawning rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 621–625.Google Scholar
  17. Plumb, J. A., O. L. Green, R. O. Smitherman, and G. B. Pardue. 1975. Channel catfish virus experiments with different strains of channel catfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104: 140–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reagan, R. E. 1979. Heritabilities and genetic correlations of desirable commercial traits in channel catfish. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Research Report Vol. 4, No. 5. Mississippi State University, Mississippi.Google Scholar
  19. Smitherman, R. O., R. A. Dunham, T. O. Bice, and J. L. Horn. 1984. Reproductive efficiency in reciprocal pairings of two strains of channel catfish. Progressive Fish-Culturist 46: 106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tave, D. 1986. Genetics for Fish Hatchery Managers. Westport, Conn.: AVI Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Tave, D. 1989. Channel catfish yield trial centers: an idea whose time has come. Aquaculture Magazine 15 (1): 50–52.Google Scholar
  22. Wolters, W. G., G. S. Libey, and C. L. Chrisman. 1982. Effect of triploidy on growth and gonadal development of channel catfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111: 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig S. Tucker
    • 1
  • Edwin H. Robinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Mississippi State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations