4.7 Article

Genetic parameters for traits affecting consumer preferences for the Portuguese oyster, Crassostrea angulata

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 526, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735391

关键词

Genetic improvement; Oyster; Heritability; Correlation; Meat quality traits

资金

  1. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Australia (ACIAR) [FIS/2010/100]
  2. John Allwright Fellowship of ACIAR at the GeneCology Research Centre of University of the Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Production of the Portuguese oyster, Crassostrea angulata, is increasing rapidly in Vietnam, and consumer preferences for oyster appearance and meat quality have become more economically important. However, no studies have been conducted to estimate genetic parameters for meat colour, edible traits and the occurrence of disfiguring parasite infestation in any oyster species. In this study, we report genetic parameters for parasite disease traits, objective measurements of shell and mantle colours (L*, a* and b* colour) and edible traits (water holding capacity, taste and tenderness) for a selectively bred Portuguese oyster breeding population. We applied a restricted maximum likelihood method to estimate genetic parameters for the traits studied. Heritability estimates for the colour measurements of shell and mantle were low to high (h(2) = 0.13-0.57), whereas those obtained for the parasite diseases on shells and tissues were close to zero (h(2) = 0.011). Interestingly, there was genetic variation in edible traits (h(2) = 0.04-0.17). The genetic correlations among whole weight and parasitic shell and tissue disease traits was significant but unfavourable, whereas the genetic correlations between whole weight and water holding capacity was considerable and favourable (r(g) = 0.87 +/- 0.05). These suggest that a multi-trait restricted selection index should be used to improve productivity and economic returns for the oyster aquaculture sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据