↓ Skip to main content

Phenotyping for Genetic Improvement of Feed Efficiency in Fish: Lessons From Pig Breeding

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phenotyping for Genetic Improvement of Feed Efficiency in Fish: Lessons From Pig Breeding
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pieter W. Knap, Antti Kause

Abstract

Feed incurs most of the cost of aquaculture production, so feed efficiency (FE) improvement is of great importance. Our aim is to use work done in pigs to formulate a logical framework for assessing the most useful component traits influencing feed intake (FI) and efficiency in farmed fish - either to identify traits that can together be used for genetic improvement of FE, or as substitute traits for FI recording. Improvement of gross FE in growing fish can be accomplished by selection for increased growth rate. However, the correlation of growth with FE is typically only modest, and hence there is room for further improvement of FE through methods other than growth selection. Based on a literature review we propose that the most effective additional methods are selection for reduced body lipid content and for reduced residual FI (RFI). Both methods require more or less sophisticated recording equipment; in particular, the estimation of RFI requires recording of FI which is a challenge. In mammals and birds, both these approaches have been effective, and despite the high costs of FI recording, the RFI approach can be cost-efficient because maintenance requirements are high and therefore RFI variation covers a large part of FI variance. Maintenance requirements of fish are lower and therefore RFI variation covers a smaller part of FI variance. Moreover, accurate high-volume routine individual FI recording is much more challenging in fish than in mammals or birds. It follows that selection for reduced body fat content is likely a more effective (and certainly more cost-efficient) way to improve feed conversion ratio in fish than selection for reduced RFI. As long as body fat content is dealt with as an explicit selection criterion, the only valid reason for FI recording would be the requirement of RFI reduction. So, if RFI reduction is not required, there would be no need for the expense and effort of individual FI recording - and in fish breeding that would be a very desirable situation. Solid evidence for these propositions is still scarce, and their generality still needs to be confirmed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,361,238
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,813
of 13,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,420
of 344,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#26
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,698 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.