Can the global adoption of genetically improved fish for increased?

Views:
 
     
 

Presentation Description

Presented by Dr Ingrid Olesen, Nofima, at WorldFish Center, Malaysia, 15th February 2012.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Can the global adoption of genetically improved fish for aquaculture be increased beyond 10%, and how?: 

08.03.2012 test 1 Can the global adoption of genetically improved fish for aquaculture be increased beyond 10%, and how ? Ingrid Olesen Professor, Senior scientist

Objective: 

08.03.2012 test 2 Objective Address: What are the main challenges and obstacles for adopting genetically improved fish in aquaculture? What can be done to overcome them?

Outline : 

08.03.2012 test 3 Outline Long term selection responses, successes Status of breeding programs Economic, political, legal and other social challenges Conclusions and recommendations Betterfish – CGIAR fellowship and project

Selected (5th gen) vs. Wild salmon: 

08.03.2012 test 4 Selected (5th gen) vs. Wild salmon Thodesen et al. (2001) S - W, % Growth +113 Feed-uptake +40 Protein utilzation +9 Energy utilzation +14 Feed conv. efficiency +20 G8: +30% Norw. salmon industry 2007 Reduced feed cost: NOK 1,5 bill (>USD 250 mill)

PowerPoint Presentation: 

08.03.2012 test 5 5 Highly favourable Benefit/Cost ratios Species Benefit / Cost ratio Reference Sheep, cattle, pigs 5-50 Mitchell et al. (1982), Barlow (1992), Greff (1997) Atlantic salmon 15 Gjedrem (1997) Nile tilapia 8-60 Ponzoni et al. (2007) Benefit for whom ?

PowerPoint Presentation: 

08.03.2012 test 6 6 Shorter production cycle (reduced risk) Increased resource efficiency - feed, land, water, labour per unit of product Improved animal welfare ‘Tailoring’ products Highly favourable Benefit/Cost ratios - for society (reduced prices and improved quality and farming for consumers/public) - for farmers - for breeding companies/investors? Benefit of genetic improvements

Outline : 

08.03.2012 test 7 Outline Long term selection responses, successes Status of breeding programs Economic, political, legal and other social challenges Conclusions and recommendations Betterfish – CGIAR fellowship and project

Family based programs (Gjedrem et al, 2012 after Neira, 2010): 

08.03.2012 test 8 Family based programs (Gjedrem et al, 2012 after Neira, 2010) Species No. programs Mean no Families Mean no. traits selected for World production in 2005(1000 tons) Common carp 8 76 2 3 044 Rohu carp 1 60-70 2 1 196 Silver barb 1 - 1 97 Tilapia Nile 20 229 3.6 1 703 Tilapia blue 2 90 2 2 Tilapia red 4 125 4 - Tilapia O. shiranus 1 51 1 - Channel catfish 1 200 4 380 African catfish 1 70 1 29 Striped catfish 1 182 3 436

Family based programs (Gjedrem et al, 2012 after Rye et al. 2010): 

08.03.2012 test 9 Family based programs (Gjedrem et al, 2012 after Rye et al. 2010) Species No. programs Mean no Families Mean no. traits Selected for World production in 2005 (1000 tons) Atlantic salmon 13 280 5.4 1 236 Chinook salmon 2 100 1.5 24 Coho salmon 4 133 2.7 117 Rainbow trout 13 206 5.2 487 European whitefish 1 70 2.0 1 Turbot 2 60 1.0 7 Atlantic cod 3 110 4.0 8 European seabass 3 100 5.0 58 Sea bream 4 100 6.0 111 Total species 101 - - 17 822 Total all species - - - 48 150

Outline : 

08.03.2012 test 10 Outline Long term selection responses, successes Status of breeding programs Economic, political, legal and other social challenges Conclusions and recommendations Betterfish – CGIAR fellowship and project

PowerPoint Presentation: 

08.03.2012 test 11 11 Sector Mill NOK % Breeding nucleus 40 0.4 Egg producers 70 0.7 Smolt producers 1 200 12.4 Grow-out 8 400 86.5 Total 9 710 ==> NOK 0.07/kg Turnover in different sectors of Norwegian salmon industry, 2004 (Kontali Analyse AS, 2004) Value of the genetic gain over 7-8 gen of selection: NOK 0.50/kg fish/year (Gjerde et al., 2006) ==> Most of the added value to the grow-out producers and/or the consumers

Access and rights to genetic resources: 

08.03.2012 test 12 Access and rights to genetic resources High reproduction capacity – “piracy copying” Breeding companies need protection of genetic material to assure a fair benefit from genetic improvement and investment Fish farmers and fish breeders need access to genetic resources for food production, development and use of genetic resources How to balance the conflicting interests?

PowerPoint Presentation: 

08.03.2012 test 13 13 Procedures to secure owners rights ? Biological protection - continuously improvement and documentation - crossbreeding - sterile grow-out fish Legal protection - Branding - Material transfer agreement (MTA) - Patent - Open source system - Sui Generis Other - Secrecy, publishing, lobbying towards governments - Mandatory certificate of origin - Fish variety of Health Impact fund, Wimp, Spotify After Rosendal et al., 2006

Lacking aquaculture breeding – reasons 1: 

08.03.2012 test 14 Lacking aquaculture breeding – reasons 1 Fry and fingerlings from wild stocks easily available Lack of tradition and transfer of selection technology and knowledge of quantitative genetics Shortage of well-trained quantitative geneticists (Misztal, 2007) Inbreeding (few broodfish in mass selection) Small enterprises and lacking unions or cooperatives Low willingness to pay for improved roe/fry – low value of small fry Low profit margins for hatcheries and/or breeders

Lacking aquaculture breeding – reasons 2: 

08.03.2012 test 15 Lacking aquaculture breeding – reasons 2 Investments needed R&D funds prioritized for molecular genetics & genomics Little public and private funding for development and establishment of selective breeding programs Poor marketing and promotion on most levels (local, governmental, regional, global) Few major species representing ca 50% production (incl. carps) lack breeding programs

Carps, shellfish and China: 

08.03.2012 test 16 Carps, shellfish and China Species with the highest production: 7 species (silver carp, grass carp, common carp, big head carp, crusian carp, Pacific oyster, Japanese carpet shell) produced > 2 mill. tons in 2005 = 47% of world production of fish & shellfish (FAO, 2007) Few genetically improved stocks in common carp and oysters, and none in the other 5 species China produce 43% of the 7 species without breeding programs for these, except one for common carp (Gjedrem et al, 2011) Future development in China?

Conclusions & recommendations : 

08.03.2012 test 17 Conclusions & recommendations Substantial genetic selection responses with high return on investments Genetic improvement programs not applied or in early stages for most aquaculture species – phase of public funding Keep low inbreeding by securing sufficient no families Low cost robust (low inbreeding) fish breeding programs Training of more people in quantitative genetics & selection on all levels Legal system needed to secure the breeding companies a fair share of the benefit of their work and stimulate innovation Selective breeding programs needed to apply genomics (MAS, GS) Public RD funding and training in parallel needed in selective breeding and genomics Public and cooperative breeding programs may be needed

Betterfish – Aquaculture of genetically improved fish : 

08.03.2012 test 18 Betterfish – Aquaculture of genetically improved fish CGIAR Fellowship Funding of the Research Council of Norway January – June 2012 Overall objective: Increased aquaculture production of genetically improved and domesticated animals, and integration of disease resistance in the breeding objectives for farmed fish Overall research questions: Why are not more than 10% of aquaculture production based on genetically improved material, what are the main challenges and obstacles, and what can be done to overcome them?

Objectives: 

08.03.2012 test 19 Objectives More knowledge and understanding of specific causes of lacking use of genetically improved animals in aquaculture in SE Asia Collaboration on on-going projects with related research topics in Nofima and WorldFish Center exchange knowledge and experience on on-going projects on genetic effects on social interactions in farmed cod (Breedwell in Nofima) and tilapia (WorldFish Center). Establishment of new collaborating project(s), e.g. on genetic disease resistance in tilapia Collaboration on genetic studies on giant fresh water prawn with researchers at Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, KL

Specific objectives - research: : 

08.03.2012 test 20 Specific objectives - research: Understanding of causes of lacking competence and training in aquaculture breeding and genetics Understanding about specific reasons for actors’ reluctance to invest in aquaculture breeding programs Understanding and knowledge about the reasons for hatcheries and fish farmers’ low demand for genetically improved animals Recommendations for overcoming challenges of establishing and managing fish breeding programmes for more efficient and animal friendly aquaculture

Implementation- Surveying and recommending: 

08.03.2012 test 21 Implementation- Surveying and recommending Actors, including women, in aquaculture in SE Asia interviewed about farming and breeding of tilapias and carps. Decision makers in relevant governmental bodies, research institutions and universities, hatcheries, as well as fish breeding and farming interviewed to reveal specific challenges and obstacles to implement fish breeding programs. Countries of China, Vietnam and Malaysia chosen, where tilapia breeding programs have been established, but hardly any breeding programs for carps (Neira, 2010). Interdisciplinary collaboration involving both biological and social sciences needed. Collaboration with scientists at the WorldFish Center allows for extension with both geneticists and social scientists with competence on social and economic analysis of aquaculture and policy and institutional analysis

Milestones: 

08.03.2012 test 22 Milestones March 2012. Interviews carried out February and March 2012: Seminars held at World Fish Center and University of Malaya June 2012: Reports, presentations of results at meetings and seminars August 2012: Scientific publication submitted August 2012: Tilapia disease project proposal submitted and possible establishment of project

Acknowledgement: 

08.03.2012 test 23 Acknowledgement Funding from Norglobal, FUGE and IndoNorway programs of the Research Council of Norway Thanks to: Hans Bentsen, Trygve Gjedrem & Bjarne Gjerde, Nofima Kristin Rosendal and Morten Walløe Tvedt, Fridtjof Nansen Institute