1. SELECTIVE BREEDING PROGRAM FOR GIANT FRESHWATER PRAWN (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) IN THE MEKONG DELTA OF VIET NAM
Nguyễn Thanh Vũ*, Đinh Hùng, Nguyễn Trung Ký, Nguyễn Thị Kiều Nga, Trịnh Quốc Trọng
Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2 (RIA2), 116 Nguyễn Đình Chiểu, District 1, Hồ Chí Minh City, Việt Nam *

2. Key points Introduction Budget of the program Base population Tagging
Descriptive data
Statistical analysis
Rearing
Heritability, GxE and selection response
Advantages and disadvantages
Future of the program
Questions

3. Introduction Most cultured prawn species in Mekong delta
Consumed locally, as whole body and below market demand
Lack of fry in both quality and quantity
Degradation
Improve growth performance

4. Budget RIA2 = RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR AQUACULTURE No.2
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
RIA2
100*
100
WFC
150 ?
GOR
1.100
750
300
800
SELL ??
???
* IN MILLION VIETNAM DONG, US$ 1 = VND
RIA2 = RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR AQUACULTURE No.2
WFC = WORLD FISH CENTER IN MALAYSIA
GOR = GOVERMENT (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT)
SELL = MONEY FROM SELL BROODSTOCK TO OTHER ORGANISATION

5. Base population Based on 3 geographical strains Mekong river
Dong Nai river
Introduced strain from Malay
Complete diallel cross, 81 families and 594 selected individuals from 69 families to reproduce G1
G2-G4: combined family selection
G4: 2 other new introduced strains from Thai Lan and Myanmar

6. LOCAL STRAINS
DONGNAI
MEKONG

7. Rearing
MATING
POSTLARVAE
BROODSTOCK
TAGGING

8. Tagging VIE (Visible Implant Elastomer tags)
6 colors + 2 colors tagged + 4 positions = 216 CODEs
4 tag positions were determined
TAGS RENTENTION over 98%
Recognize correct CODE was above 98%
Possible to tag individual if combining TWO CODEs  in the year of 2014
1-red
4-no color
2-yellow
3-red

9. Collecting data and recognize high individual EBV
Step 1: all data were collected, supposed high EBV individual was tagged by other COLOR CODE (around 30% of top animals).
Step 2: all data were analyzed by specific software in order to find the best animal for produce subsequent generation, with supplement CODE
 difficult to estimate the weight distribution
Zero-yellow: to link individual animal and the recorded data

10. Model for estimating variance components and Estimating Breeding Value (EBV)
All collected data were analyzed by AS-Reml
Model used: y = Xb + Za + Wc + e
When :y is the vector of harvest body weight value, b is the vector of fix effext such as pond, generation, strains, sex and morphotype of male and female, a is vector of additive genetic effect on harvest body weight, c is the vector of common effect
X, Z and W are known design matrices to level of b, a, and c.
And e is the vector of individual random error effects

11. Cumulative genetic response
Pc =
Pc: TOTAL GENETIC RESPONSE (%)
Pi: GENETIC RESPONSE (%)
i= GENERATION

12. Number of full- and half-sib families over generations
Year
Generati on
Full-sib
Half-sib
Individuals
2008 G0 81
1,870
2009 G1
104 5
3,771
2010 G2
117 20
5,902
2011 G3
144 60
6,844
2012 G4
127 52
3,072
2013 G5
5,821

13. Descriptive data over generations
YEAR
SEX
Number of animal
MEAN
± SD
AGE
Min
Max
SURVIVAL % G0
2008 HAPA
Female
846
15.7±4.6
3.5
33.8
35.2
Male
1,024
19.8±10.9
2.8
72.9
54.8
All
1,870
18.0±8.9
218±1.8
26.7 G1
2009
HAPA
1,630
27.4±8.3
2.2
67.7
43.2
2,141
44.8±38.5
1.7
169.7
56.8
3,771
37.3±30.7
218±14.9
26.9 G2
2010
POND
3,603
27.7±7.2
5.1
66.2
61.1
2,299
56.0±29.3
3.0
134.7
38.9
5,902
37.5±21.2
201±13.2
42.2 G3
2011
3,935
29.7±8.9
7.8
82.7
57.5
2,909
64.1±23.4
4.9
122.0
42.5
6,844
44.3±23.8
188±25.1
48.9 G4
2012
1,884
39.5±11.1
13.1
96.7
61.3
1,188
77.8±36.9
4.0
158.2
38.7
3,072
54.3±30.8
200±21.2
25.2

14. Heritability Sex Number of reared animal Parameters h2±se c2±se Female
10,014
0.39±0.05
0.10±0.02
Male
All
7,982
19,996
0.08±0.03
0.21±0.10
0.05±0.0
0.09±0.03

15. Estimating genetic by environmental (GxE) effect
Rearing model
Experimental pond
Rice flood
0.86±0.13
Intensive pond
0.76 ± 0.22

16. Selection responses Method Generation Harvest body weight
Actual units, g0.5
(%)
Standard error
LSM – selection line (SL) versus control group (CG) – same generation G1
0.21
4.02
0.58 G2
0.48
8.86
1.31 G3
0.44
7.91
1.19
Accumulated
22.20
EBVs between the progeny of the SL versus CG same generation
0.10
3.66
0.26
0.25
9.17
0.68
0.19
7.04
0.53
21.13
EBVs of the progeny of the SL in two consecutive generations
0.03
1.21
0.09
0.18
6.54
0.14
5.09
0.38
13.31

17. Prospection Longer head  may decrease carcass quality???
Early in maturation!
Hatchery techniques
Individual tagging
Selective breeding prawn vs nature prawns

18. Hatchery Siphoning counting post-larvae
Water exchange basket for mating

19. Tagging & Grow-out
Keeping PLs before tagging VIE color ready for using
Juvenile after tagging Grow-out pond

20. Future of the program Combine selection: growth rate and survival rate
Individual tagging
Supply good quality seed and brood stocks from the best performance families in the current program

21. Thanks for your attention