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: hicksc@lincolnu.eduE-mail: hicksc@lincolnu.edu