Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes. For other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s version. This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Antti Kause; Antti Nousiainen and Heikki Koskinen Title: Improvement in feed effciency and reduction in nutrient loading from rainbow trout farms: the role of selective breeding Year: 2022 Version: Publisher’s version Copyright: The author(s) 2022 Rights: CC BY 4.0 Rights url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Please cite the original version: Antti Kause, Antti Nousiainen, Heikki Koskinen, Improvement in feed efficiency and reduction in nutrient loading from rainbow trout farms: the role of selective breeding, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 100, Issue 8, August 2022, skac214, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac214 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, 100, 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac214 Advance access publication 9 June 2022 Animal Genetics and Genomics Improvement in feed efficiency and reduction in nutrient loading from rainbow trout farms: the role of selective breeding Antti Kause,†,1 Antti Nousiainen,‡ and Heikki Koskinen‡ †Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Animal Genetics, Jokioinen FI-31600, Finland ‡Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Aquaculture Solutions, Kuopio FI-70210, Finland 1Corresponding author: antti.kause@luke.fi Abstract Resource efficiency, the ratio of inputs to outputs, is essential for both the economic and environmental performance of any sector of food production. This study quantified the advancement in the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and reduction in nutrient loading from rainbow trout farm- ing in Finland and the degree to which genetic improvements made by a national breeding program have contributed to this advancement. The study combined two datasets. One included annual records on farm-level performance of commercial rainbow trout farms from 1980 onwards, and the other included individuals across eight generations of the national breeding program. The data from the commercial farms showed that from 1980 onwards, the farm-level feed conversion ratio improved by 53.4%, and the specific nitrogen and phosphorus loading from the farms decreased by over 70%. Hence, to produce 1 kg of fish today, only half of the feed is needed compared to the 1980s. The first generation of the breeding program was established in 1992. The FCR was not directly selected for, and hence, the genetic improvement in the FCR is a correlated genetic change in response to the selection for growth and body composition. Since 1992, the estimated genetic improvement in the FCR has been 1.74% per generation, resulting in a cumulative genetic improvement of 11.6% in eight generations. Genetic improvement in the FCR is estimated to be 32.6% of the total improvement in the FCR observed at farms, implying that genetic improvement is a significant contributor to resource efficiency. The use of genetically improved rainbow trout, instead of the base population of fish, reduces feed costs by 18.3% and total production costs by 7.8% at commercial farms (by −0.266€ per kg of ungutted fish). For phosphorus and nitrogen, it can be assumed that the use of fish material with an improved FCR also leads to 18.3% less nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into an aquatic environment. Such improvements in resource efficiency are win–wins for both industry and the environment—the same amount of seafood can be produced with significantly reduced amounts of raw materials and reduced environmental impact. Lay Summary Resource efficiency, the ratio of inputs to outputs, is essential for both the economic and environmental performance of aquaculture. The data from commercial rainbow trout farms showed that from 1980 onwards, the farm-level feed conversion ratio (FCR) improved by 53.4%, and the specific nitrogen and phosphorus loading from the farms decreased by over 70%. Hence, to produce 1 kg of fish today, only half of the feed is needed compared to the 1980s. Selective breeding is a major contributor to this improvement, and it has resulted in an estimated genetic gain of 1.74% per generation in the FCR. The use of genetically improved rainbow trout, instead of a base population of fish, reduces feed costs and nutrient loading by 18.3% and total production costs by 7.8% at commercial farms. Such improvements in resource efficiency are win–wins for both industry and the environment—the same amount of seafood can be produced with significantly reduced amounts of raw materials and reduced environmental impact. Key words: aquaculture, breeding program, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, genetic trend Abbreviations: EBV, estimated breeding value; EBV-FCRInd+Surv, EBV of the feed conversion ratio that accounts for the FCR and fish survival; FCR, feed conversion ratio; FCRFarm, farm-level feed conversion ratio; FCRInd, individual-level feed conversion ratio; Sea weight2, body weight at sea after two growing seasons; Sea survival2, survival at sea from tagging until the end of one growing season in the sea; Sea gutted weight2, gutted body weight at sea after two growing seasons; Sea visceral%, percentage of entrails out of body weight at sea after two growing seasons; Sea FCRInd, feed conversion ratio recorded for individuals at sea; Sea muscle lipid%BW, muscle lipid percentage at sea, statistically corrected for body weight; Sea fillet%, percentage of fillet weights out of body weight at sea; Weight1, body weight at tagging after one growing season in fresh water; Weight2, body weight after two growing seasons in fresh water; Weight3, body weight after three growing seasons in fresh water Introduction During the last decade, aquaculture has expanded globally at an annual rate of 5%–6%. In 2016, approximately 47% of consumed fish originated from aquaculture, and aqua- culture production exceeded the production of beef (FAO, 2018). Resource efficiency, the ratio of inputs to outputs, is essential for profitability and the environmental impact of the food industry. In this study, we quantified the trend of the improvement in resource efficiency in rainbow trout farming in Finland over four decades and the degree to which animal breeding contributed to this improvement. The feed conversion ratio (FCR) is the ratio of feed intake to fish biomass growth. In animal production, the FCR is a Received February 9, 2022 Accepted June 16, 2022. © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 mailto:antti.kause@luke.fi?subject= https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 2 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 8 major determinant of the profitability of the industry and environmental sustainability. First, in aquaculture, feed cost is the largest single cost category in primary production. For example, in rainbow trout farming, the feed costs are approx- imately 43% of the total production costs (Kankainen et al., 2016a, b). Second, fish farming in net pens and raceways has low energy needs and produces limited amounts of CO2 emis- sions, whereas the production of fish feed is energy intensive and accounts for a large share of CO2 emissions from aqua- culture (Ziegler et al., 2013). Third, nutrient loading to the environment is determined by the amount of feed provided and its composition but also by the retention efficiency with which the fish convert feed and its nutrients into tissue growth. In fact, farmed fish such as Atlantic salmon retain only 45% of the ingested protein (nitrogen) (Halver and Hardy, 2002). In these three cases, an improved FCR reduces both feed costs and the environmental footprint. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the main nutrients that micro- and macroalgae need for growth. Elevated levels of these nutrients in aquatic environments cause eutrophica- tion. Specific nutrient loading from aquaculture can be quan- tified as the amount of nutrients ending up in water (kg) per 1000 kg of fish produced. Similar to the FCR, environmen- tal loading defined in this way is a measure of the efficiency of aquaculture production. Human-induced eutrophication is regarded as a major negative impact in many instances, including environments in which aquaculture is practiced in Nordic countries. In Finland, a national selective breeding program for rain- bow trout was started in 1989 (Siitonen, 1986; Kause et al., 2005). The FCR itself is not recorded and directly selected for in any fish breeding programme. However, in some species, such as rainbow trout, the FCR is modestly genetically cor- related with growth rate, lipid deposition, and lean growth, a phenomenon that is also prevalent in other farm animals, such as chickens and pigs (Quinton et al., 2007; Quillet et al., 2007; Kause et al., 2016; Knap and Kause, 2018). This allows breeders to improve the FCR indirectly by selecting for these correlated traits, as is practiced in the Finnish breeding program for rainbow trout (Kause et al., 2005, 2007b, 2016; Knap and Kause, 2018). In addition, farm management, feed- ing, and feed formulation have all improved during recent decades. In this study, the objectives were 1) to quantify the long- term trend from 1980 onwards in the farm-level FCR and in specific N and P loading in the commercial rainbow trout industry in Finland; 2) to quantify the degree to which selec- tive breeding has genetically improved the FCR and the con- sequent reduction in nutrient loading; and 3) to calculate the economic benefit of using modern genetically improved rain- bow trout compared to using rainbow trout dating back to the early 1990s. Material and Methods Ethical approval This study was conducted using two datasets. One dataset included annual records on farm-level performance at com- mercial rainbow trout farms, and the other included records on individual fish of the national breeding program. The data on commercial farms were extracted from an existing database that forms the basis for regulators to evaluate whether farms operate according to their farming licenses. The study of the breeding program was conducted according to the guidelines established by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). The study was performed in accordance with Finnish animal welfare legislation and complied with the directive 2010/63/EU implemented in Finnish legislation in the Act on the Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes (62/2006). All experimental fish were anaesthetized with tricaine methanesulfonate before sampling to minimize suffering. Commercial farm data To assess the phenotypic change across decades in the FCR and nutrient loading, data from commercial rainbow trout farms were collected. Information on the annual values of the amount of feed provided, fish biomass grown, and specific phosphorus and nitrogen loading at commercial fish farms was extracted from the database of the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centre, Finland). The ELY Centre is a governmental authority mon- itoring the licensing of fish farms. Each farm submits the abovementioned information annually to the ELY Centre. The data consist of all the farms that have been approved of a farming license in the coastal areas of mainland Finland between 1980 and 2016. In 1980, the number of farms was 12, and the number of farms rose rapidly to 108 farms by 1985. The maximum was 381 farms in 1991, and in 2016, there were 159 farms. For each farm in each year, the farm-level feed conversion ratio (FCRFarm) was calculated as FCRFarm (kg feed/kg f ish) = Total feed use (kg) /Fish biomass growth (kg) . It is important to note that the FCRFarm is not the same as the FCR recorded on an individual fish (FCRInd). For the FCRFarm, the amount of biomass is influenced by both growth and survival. If there is a mismatch between the amount of feed provided and fish biomass, for instance, because recent fish mortality and feeding are not adjusted for it, the consequent overfeeding will deteriorate the FCRFarm. For each farm in each year, nutrient loading was calculated as Specif ic phosphorus loading (kg P/1000 kg f ish) = (Fish biomass growth (kg) ×P concentration in f ish− Total feed use (kg) ×P concentration in feed)/1000 kg of f ish. Specific nitrogen loading was calculated in the same man- ner, but P was substituted by N. The P and N concentra- tions of rainbow trout were 0.4% and 2.75%, respectively. Farmers record the concentrations of P and N in feeds from the certificates provided by the feed manufacturers. To provide some background, in 1999, the percentages of phosphorus and nitrogen in feeds were typically 0.91% and 6.8%, respectively, with a downward trend over time (Wideskog, 2000; Seppälä et al., 2001). It should be noted that the amount of feed sold is 14% higher than the records of feed provided, and hence, it is possible that the FCRFarm value is in reality slightly higher than reported (Wideskog, 2000). D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 Kause et al. 3 Data from the rainbow trout breeding program The data from the Finnish national breeding programme maintained by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) were used to estimate the genetic trend in the FCR across decades. The data had a total of 23 year classes from 1992 to 2015 in which fish traits have been recorded on pedigreed individuals through a 3- to 4-yr life cycle from juvenile to adult fish. This provided 8 generations and 7 epi- sodes of genetic selection, plus the base population of the 1989 and 1990 year classes. The breeding program has been maintained at Luke’s Tervo aquaculture station in central Finland. The data consisted of a total of 547,246 individuals with 537,262 individuals with phenotypes and an additional 9,984 individuals with only pedigree information. It should be noted that the highest sample size was for tagging weight, Weight1, whereas the other traits had much lower sample sizes (Table 1). The data included 3260 sires, 3270 dams, and 5821 full-sib families. The sires were mated to an average of 1.8 dams, and the dams were mated to an average of 1.8 sires. Each class had 109–341 families. During the grow-out period for each class, fish were either kept at the freshwater nucleus station or sent to one or two sea test stations (Table 1). The parents for each generation were selected based on their estimated breeding values (EBVs) for growth (since 1992), age at maturity (since 2001), external appearance (since 2001), skeletal deformations (since 2002), fillet color (2003–2012), cataracts caused by Diplostomum parasites (since 2003), percentage of viscera weight out of body weight (2005) and survival (since 2010). The practice of estimat- ing EBVs is the same as described in the section “Genetic trend analysis.” To control the rate of inbreeding, the opti- mal genetic contribution method has been used since 2002 to select the individuals with the highest selection index values who are not too closely related and to assign the number of matings and mating pairs of the selected individuals (Kause et al., 2005). Each year, parental fish are mated at the Tervo freshwater nucleus station during April–June. The year class 2001 was the first one in which the breed- ing program had two selection lines, one for maintaining a steady age at maturity (Growth-line) and a new selection line in which one of the main breeding goals was delayed age at maturity (Delayed maturity-line) (Ritola et al., 2006). EBVs were estimated simultaneously for both lines with the full data presented here. In the current study, however, genetic trends were presented only for the Growth-line. Only this line was used throughout the years analyzed here, and it is by far the more commonly used line at commercial farms (>70% of the material sold from the breeding program). After mating, full-sib egg batches were incubated separately within subdivided trays. At the eyed-egg stage, each full-sib family was transferred to one of two 150-liter indoor tanks. Eggs hatched in July, and the first feeding occurred in August. After 2 to 3  wk of growth in the tanks (at a body weight of 2 g), full-sib families were equalized to similar family size of 150 individuals. Thereafter, the full-sib families were kept separately in 150-liter indoor tanks until the start of individ- ual tagging in November. All the fingerlings were individually weighed to the nearest 0.1 g during tagging (Weight1) when they had grown for one growing season in freshwater family tanks. At tagging, each family was split into two groups: one group was held in open raceways at the nucleus as breeding candidates, and the other group was transferred into net pens at one or two commercial sea stations located in the Baltic Sea. Over 80% of commer- cial production occurs at sea. From 2000 onwards, within-family selection for Weight1 has been practiced to maximize genetic gain in the nucleus (Martinez et al., 2006). Within-family selection was prac- ticed during tagging by leaving the largest fish within a fam- ily in the nucleus and transferring the second largest fish to the two sea stations. The remaining untagged fish within a family were weighed as a group (w), counted (n), and culled. Then, for each family, it was assumed that Weight1 had a normal distribution with a mean value calculated from the data. The standard deviation of a family (SD) was calculated Table 1. Sample size (n), trait means, phenotypic variance (VP), and year classes in which the traits of the breeding program were recorded for (A) breeding values estimation and for (B) estimation of genetic parameters for specific traits in year classes 1992–2015 n Mean VP Year classes with or without records A. Traits in breeding value evaluation Weight1, g 525 247 61.2 482.41 Only 2010 missing Weight2, g 94 206 1021 38 0851 2008,2009,2011,2012,2015 missing Weight3, g 95 309 2178 143 4091 2012 missing Sea weight2, g 82 168 1162 84 7791 1993,1995,2010 missing Sea gutted weight2, g 74 824 1028 65 0391 1992, 1993,1995,2002,2010 missing Sea visceral%, % 78 829 11.9 2.77231 1992, 1993,1995,2002,2010 missing Sea survival2, proportion 93 614 0.678 0.200061 1992,1993,1995,1996,1997, 1998,1999,2010 missing B. Traits in separate experiments to estimate genetic parameters Sea FCRInd, g feed/ g weight gain 692 1.26 0.32462 Recorded in 2001 Sea fillet%, % 2 671 64.75 6.30643 Recorded in 2003, 2004 Sea muscle lipid%BW, % 998 7.70 4.3844 Recorded in 2001 1Estimated using the models given in Table 2. 2Trait ‘LifeFCRIndicator’ of Kause et al. (2016). Original mean = 0.845E-02 and VP = 1.46E-05, rescaled here to reflect the FCRFarm of year 2002 in the commercial farm data. 3Trait ‘Fillet percentage’ of Kause et al. (2007b). 4Trait ‘Muscle lipid%[BW]’ of Kause et al. (2016). D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 4 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 8 based on only the unculled observations above the mean (for 1/2 the SD) and assuming a symmetrical normal distribu- tion (to obtain the full SD). Individual Weight1 records for the culled individuals were then randomly drawn from the left-hand side of the normal distribution, below the body weight threshold that was used for culling, while simulta- neously maintaining the original mean Weight1 of the culled group. These generated individual records were added to the data. Simulations have shown that this practice prevents selection bias, i.e., restores trait variances to the level before within-family selection (Janhunen et al., 2014). On average, 46 individuals from each family were individually weighed and tagged (typically 15 were sent to sea and 25 held at the nucleus), whereas data were generated for an average of 60 untagged fish per family. At the freshwater nucleus, after the second growing sea- son, fish were weighed to the nearest 1 g during April–June (Weight2). Fish were classified according to the presence or absence of deformed skeletal structures through visual inspection (Kause et al., 2005, 2007a). Deformations were recorded based on the external characteristics of the live fish through visual inspection Deformed here refers to fish with deformed skeletal structures of the head, neck, back, or tail. A fish with any form of deformation received a score of one, and a normal fish received a score of zero. Because the recording was based on external characteristics, the aver- age incidences given are underestimates of the true defor- mity rates. The lenses of the fishes’ eyes were evaluated for cataracts caused by parasitic Diplostomum spp. eye flukes (Kuukka-Anttila et al., 2010). A visual eye examination was carried out on the fish by a trained person, and cataracts were scored as 0 = healthy eyes, 1 = one opaque eye, and 2 = both eyes opaque. Furthermore, sex-specific maturity traits were recorded (11 = maturing male, 12 = maturing female, 10 = immature male, 20 = immature female, 9 = sex or matu- rity unknown). At the freshwater nucleus, fish were classified by sex and maturity after both the second (based on visible external characteristics) and third growing seasons (visu- ally and using an ultrasound device) (Kause et al., 2003). The fish maturing at the age of 2 yr were removed from the population. Fish whose sex could not be determined or who died were coded as sex not known. However, after the third growing season, live fish of unknown sex were late-matur- ing individuals whose gonads were not visible at this stage, and they were coded as immature females. Females typically mature one year later than males, and each fish matures only once during its lifetime. The 3-yr-old fish were weighed in late September–November (Weight3) (Table 1). At the sea stations, after one freshwater growing sea- son (fingerling period) and one sea growing season, fish were weighed to the nearest 1 g during October–April (Sea weight2), and their grow-out survival between tagging and the end of the grow-out period at sea (Sea survival2) was recorded. Male fish were classified as mature and immature. At sea, fish were harvested before female maturation, and hence all females at sea were immature. At the same time, gutted body weight was recorded to the nearest 1  g (Sea gutted weight2) to calculate the percentage of entrails (Sea visceral% = 100 (Sea weight2 − Sea gutted weight2) / Sea weight2) (Table 1). To complete the genetic trend analysis, the phenotypic and genetic parameters estimated in our previous studies of the traits Sea FCRInd, Sea muscle lipid%BW (Kause et al., 2016) and Sea fillet% (Kause, 2007b) were also used in the present study (Table 1). To record the trait Sea FCRInd, feed intake was recorded on individuals using the X-ray technique (Kause et al., 2016), and FCRInd was calculated as follows: Feed intake/ Body weight gain. Feed intake was recorded 9 times for fish growing from an initial average weight of 143.5 g to the final average weight of 2113 g. The trait Sea muscle lipid%BW was chemically determined lipid% of a piece of a cross-sectional slice of a fillet, statistically corrected for by using final weight as a fixed regression term (at an average weight of 2113 g). Sea FCRInd and Sea muscle lipid%BW were recorded at the fresh- water nucleus (Kause et al., 2016), but their genetic parame- ters were assumed to be applicable to a sea environment. Sea fillet% was recorded on the routine breeding programme fish reared at sea, and the trait was calculated as the percentage of the weights of untrimmed fillets from Sea weight2 (Kause et al., 2007b; Table 1). Genetic trend analysis In the genetic trend analysis, the phenotypic and genetic parameters of all 10 traits in Table 1 were first generated, and then breeding values of the traits were estimated to assess the genetic changes in the traits across the generations. Multitrait animal models were used to estimate the genetic parameters and breeding values of the traits. In step one, the phenotypic and genetic parameters of the traits that are routinely recorded in the program (Table 1) were estimated using a single 7-trait model (Table 2). The parameters are presented in Supplementary Appendix 1. The variance components were analysed with the data of the year classes 2001–2007 with the following sample sizes: Weight1 (200 737), Weight2 (36 937), Weight3 (30 744), Sea weight2 (33 481), Sea gutted weight2 (29 709), Sea visceral% (29 694), and Sea survival2 (49 964). The genetic parameters of these traits have been published and discussed previously (Kause et al., 2003, 2005; 2007b; Vehviläinen et al., 2012). Phenotypic and genetic (co)variances were estimated using multitrait linear animal models and DMU software apply- ing the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method (Madsen and Jensen, 2013). Survival was analyzed on the observed binary scale using a linear mixed model. In step two, the phenotypic and genetic (co)variances of traits Sea FCRInd, Sea fillet% and Sea muscle lipid%BW were merged into the (co)matrices estimated in step one. These three traits were recorded only in one or two generations to estimate their phenotypic and genetic parameters (Kause et al., 2007b, 2016). It was assumed that Sea FCRInd had a mean of 1.26, which was the mean in 2002 (the year when the fish were evaluated for the FCR) in the farm-level data of FCRFarm, and the variances of Sea FCRInd were scaled to this mean value. This put the estimated genetic trend of Sea FCRInd at the same scale as the farm-level data on FCRFarm. The merging of the three traits resulted in full 10-trait (co)variance matrices. The only unpublished correlation was the one between Sea FCRInd and Sea fillet%. This needed to be estimated, and the dataset of Kause et al. (2008, 2016) in which both traits are present was used. In these data, fillet% was calculated as the area of the fillet from the total area of the fish body, determined using image analysis of a cross section of a fish (Kause et al., 2008). To be able to use the additive genetic (co)variance matrix of the 10 traits in step four to estimate EBVs, the matrix was bent to be positive definite using the method of Hayes and Hill (1981) (Supplementary Appendix 1). D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data Kause et al. 5 In step three, the full phenotypic data of the traits routinely recorded in the breeding programme (Table 1) were updated with dummy observations for the traits Sea FCRInd, Sea fil- let% and Sea muscle lipid%BW. For all fish in the data, these three traits were added to the data with a missing value for all individuals. This allowed us to estimate their genetic trend because their genetic (co)variance with all the other traits was included in the breeding value estimation. In step four, the updated full phenotypic data, the pheno- typic and genetic parameters, the full pedigree, and the statis- tical models of Table 2 were used to estimate breeding values across all the generations for the 10 traits using MiX99 soft- ware to solve mixed model equations (Lidauer et al., 2017). This allows one to partition changes in a phenotypic mean of a trait across generations into its components and genetic and environmental trends. The genetic changes occurring in Sea FCRInd, Sea fillet% and Sea muscle lipid%BW were correlated genetic changes because these traits were not directly selected. The random and fixed factors and the covariates used in the statistical models to estimate (co)variances and EBVs are presented in Table 2. The full pedigree and all relationships between all animals were accounted for in the analysis to estimate genetic effects. The random Year×Tank effect was used to estimate the common environmental variance of full sibs, including the family tank effect. Residual covariance was always set to zero when estimating EBVs and when calculat- ing genetic correlations between traits that had no records from the same individuals. Phenotypic variance was estimated as VP = VG + VC + VR, where VG is additive genetic variance, VC is nongenetic variance in common full sibs, and VR is resid- ual variance. Heritability was calculated as h2 = VA/VP, and the common environment ratio was calculated as c2 = VC/VP. In the final step, the genetic trends for each trait were obtained by calculating the average EBV for each year class of the nucleus fish and plotting the averages against the birth year of the fish. The year 1992 is the first year class with phe- notypes and was used as the base in which all EBVs were zero. A farmer rearing genetically improved fish will benefit from improvements in both Sea FCRInd and Sea Survival2 because both influence the farm-level FCRFarm. Unlike individual-level FCRInd, farm-level FCRFarm is influ- enced by both the FCR and the potential mismatch between feeding and the real fish biomass in a net pen. Mortality causes a change in fish biomass that is not always observed at a farm. To assess the maximum effect of this combined effect, a hypothetical scenario was imagined in which it was assumed that a farmer is unable to adjust the amount of feed provided to fish biomass in a net pen. Hence, with the survival of genetically improved fish, a farmer will obtain more fish biomass with the same amount of feed provided. To reflect this scenario, a new EBV was calculated (EBV-FCRInd+Surv) that combined the effect of EBV-FCRInd and EBV-Sea survival2. In other words, EBV-FCRInd+Surv = EBV-FCRInd (1+Sea survival2), meaning that the fish biomass reared is increased proportion- ally to improved EBV-Sea survival2. The genetic trends of EBV-FCRInd and EBV-FCRInd+Surv were integrated into the annual trend of farm-level FCRFarm by using 1993 as the first year when fish from the breeding pro- gramme were at sea (i.e., year class 1992 fish at on-growing at the age of 1–2 yr). FCRFarm was set to zero for that year, and its improvement across years was quantified as the deviation from zero. Thereafter, the rescaled FCRFarm and the genetic trends were plotted onto the same graph. Economic benefit of using genetically improved fish material The economic benefit of using the fish material that has been genetically improved for FCRInd was approximated by calcu- lating current-day farm performance when either the genet- ically improved rainbow trout of 2016 were assumed to be used in on-growing or when the base population of fish from 1992 were farmed. The following assumptions were made. A total of 9.2 M kg is farmed. This was the volume of farmed fish in year 2016 (Figure 1). Based on the economic analysis of the costs and returns of rainbow trout farming, the feed cost was 1.382 €/kg of feed, and all other costs of rearing until fish are harvested and gutted were 3.22 €/kg of ung- utted fish (Kankainen et al., 2016a). A farm sells ungutted fish, and the gutting yield (100 gutted weight/ungutted body weight) was assumed to be 82.9%. The producer price that a Table 2. Statistical models1 for multitrait animal models used to estimate phenotypic and genetic parameters and breeding values Trait Random effects Fixed effects Fixed covariate Anim Year×Tank Year Year× Stat Year×Stat× Sex×Mat Year×Stat× Catar Year×Stat× Defor Tsum(year) Weight1 x x x x Weight2 x x x x x Weight3 x x x x x Sea weight2 x x x x Sea gutted weight2 x x x x Sea visceral% x x x x Sea survival2 x x x Sea FCRInd x x x Sea fillet% x x x Sea muscle lipid%BW x x x 1Model terms are Anim, genetic effect of an individual with full pedigree; Year×Tank, random interaction of birth year and family rearing tank; Year, fixed effect of birth year; Year×Stat, fixed interaction of birth year and testing stations in fresh and sea water; Year×Stat×Sex×Mat, fixed interaction of birth year, station, sex, and maturity; Year×Stat×Catar, fixed interaction of birth year, station, and cataract score; Year×Stat×Defor, fixed interaction of birth year, station, and deformity class; Tsum(year), fixed covariate of cumulative temperature sum at date of recording, nested within birth year. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 6 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 8 farmer obtained when selling the fish was 4.83€/kg of gutted fish. Then, two scenarios were calculated: one with the observed FCRFarm value of 1.061 from 2016 (scenario: genetically improved fish; Figure 1) and the other scenario with an FCRFarm of 1.253 that excludes genetic improvement (1.061 + 0.192 of genetic improvement from Figure 2) (scenario: base pop- ulation of fish). The reduction in feed and production costs was calculated. When the producer price is maintained fixed in both scenarios, the reduced feed costs are directly trans- formed to profit. Results The scale of aquaculture operations The data from 1980 to 2016 on biomass rearing and FCRFarm were obtained from all the licenced fish farms located along the mainland coast of Finland (Figure 1). The scale of aqua- culture activity, measured as biomass growth, increased sharply from 1980 to the early 1990s. Thereafter, the volumes decreased and stabilized. In the early 1990s, production was approximately 12 million kg, and in 2016, it was 9.2 million kg (Figure 1A). The mainland coast accounts for over half of the total production in Finland, and the other main produc- tion area is the Åland Islands. Improvement in the FCR The farm data showed that from the peak year of 1980 to 2016, the FCRFarm recorded at farms improved by 53.4% (Figure 1B). In 1980, the FCRFarm was 2.28, and in 2016, it was 1.06. An FCR value of 1.06 means that to produce 1 kg of fish, 1.06 kg of feed is needed. Hence, to produce 1 kg of fish today, only half of the feed is needed now compared to the 1980s. Since 1993, when the FCRFarm was 1.65, it has improved by 35.8%, that is, −0.590 FCR units (Figure 1B). Since then, genetically selected rainbow trout have been available for on-growing. The genetic trends of the key individual traits of the breeding programme are in Supplementary Appendix 2. The genetic trend analysis showed that since 1993, the FCRInd has genetically improved by 1.74% per genera- tion and cumulatively by 11.6%, i.e., by −0.192 FCR units (Supplementary Appendix 2; Figure 2A). This cumulative genetic improvement in the FCRInd is equal to 32.6% of the total phenotypic improvement in the FCRFarm that occurred at the same time. Figure 1. Trend of production volume (A) and farm-level feed conversion ratio, FCRFarm (B), at commercial fish farms located at the coastal areas of the mainland Finland during 1980–2016. Figure 2. (A) Trend in genetic improvement of EBV-FCRInd and EBV-FCRInd+Surv that accounts also for improvement in survival, in relation to phenotypic improvement in farm-level FCRFarm. (B) Trend of the observed farm-level FCRFarm, and re-calculated FCRFarm when the genetic trend of EBV-FCRInd or EBV- FCRInd+Surv has been subtracted from FCRFarm. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data Kause et al. 7 Simultaneously, growth at sea, Sea weight2, has genetically improved by 57.2%, that is, 6.7% per generation (Supple- mentary Appendix 2). The genetic trend for Sea survival2 showed a 7.8% percent- age point improvement in survival (Supplementary Appen- dix 2). The genetic trend for EBV-FCRInd+Surv, which includes both the FCRInd and the potential mismatch between feeding and fish biomass due to mortality, shows that during 2014, 2015, and 2016, the cumulative genetic improvement in EBV-FCRInd+Surv was equal to 44.9%, 42.9%, and 50.5% of the phenotypic improvement of farm-level FCRFarm, respec- tively (Figure 2A), up from 32.6% if only individual-level FCRInd was accounted for. Reduction in specific phosphorus and nitrogen loading The farm data showed that from the peak year of 1981, spe- cific nitrogen and phosphorus loading to water from rain- bow trout farms was reduced by 76% and 70%, respectively (Figure 3). In 1981, the loading of phosphorus was 16.0, and that of nitrogen was 125.6 (kg/1000  kg of fish). In 2016, the values were 3.8 and 37.8, respectively. The reduction in the FCRFarm was smaller (max 53.4%) than the reduction in specific loadings (>70%), indicating that the latter is not just a consequence of the former but that other factors are also involved. Assuming that the reduction in specific N and P loading is directly related to the genetic improvement in the FCRInd with a cumulative change of 11.6%, the consequent cumula- tive genetic reduction in specific N and P loading should also be 11.6%. Economic benefit of using genetically improved fish material Figure 2B shows the level at which farm-level FCRFarm would have been if no selective breeding had been practiced. If there had not been genetic improvement during the last two decades, the phenotypic improvement in the FCRFarm would have flattened. This is also evident in Figure 2A, in which the degree of genetic improvement expands rapidly across the years. In 2016, the FCR Farm was 1.061 (including genetic improvement), and the FCRFarm would have been 1.253 with- out genetic improvement in EBV-FCRInd (−0.192), a difference of 18.1%. Under present-day conditions of growing, the use of genet- ically improved fish for the FCRInd reduces feed costs by 18.1% and total production costs by 7.8% at commercial farms (Table 3). When 9.2 M kg of fish are farmed, the annual total feed costs are reduced by −2 443 060€. The reduction in feed costs is −0.266€ and −0.321€ per kg of ungutted and gutted fish, respectively. If the producer price remains fixed in the two scenarios and the cost reduction (0.321 €/kg of gutted fish) is directly trans- lated on the top of the original profit (0.272 €/kg of gutted fish), the profit increases by 118%. Discussion Resource efficiency, the ratio of inputs to outputs, is essen- tial for both the economic and environmental performance of any sector of food production. The data from commercial rainbow trout farms located along the coast of mainland Fin- land show that the farm-level feed conversion ratio (FCRFarm) has improved from the 1980s onwards by 53.4%, and spe- cific nitrogen and phosphorus loadings have decreased by over 70%. Feed costs are ~43% of the total costs of primary fish production in Finland (Kankainen et al., 2016a, b), and hence, an improved FCR leads to a major improvement in the cost structure of aquaculture. These improvements in resource efficiency are a win–win for both industry and the environment—the same amount of seafood can be produced with significantly reduced amounts of raw materials and reduced environmental impact. In Figure 3. Specific phosphorus and nitrogen loading to water from commercial rainbow trout farms located at the coastal areas of the mainland Finland during 1980–2016. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data 8 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 8 Finland, licensing of fish farms and production volumes that can be farmed are based on the environmental assessment in which nutrient loading, especially phosphorus and the eco- logical state of the aquatic environment, is key parameters. In 2008–2012, aquaculture accounted for 2.3% of phospho- rus loading from Finland to the Baltic Sea (SYKE, 2015). The majority originates from agriculture, forestry, and human communities. The reduction in the environmental impact is one key factor for the development of more sustainable aquaculture production. Our results show that in Finland, the nutrient loading of aquaculture has been dramatically reduced during the last decades. Factors explaining improvement in the FCR At least three factors explain the decades-long improvement in the feed conversion ratio as well as N and P loading. First, it is essential to realize that the first data points on farm performance originate from the early 1980s, when fish farming was in its early stages in Finland. Feeding practices and farm management have improved ever since, and the current farms are larger and more efficient. In particular, fish are not overfed; overfeeding leads to uneaten feed and a high FCR. Overfeeding can be avoided by adjusting feed- ing to match the known fish biomass, typically summarized in feeding tables, and by observing the prevalent appetite, feeding activity, biomass, and satiation level of the fish in a net pen. Second, feed composition has been changed by the feed industry to better match the nutritional needs of fish, and the digestibility of feed ingredients has been improved by pro- cessing and feed additives (Halver and Hardy, 2002; Hardy, 2010; NRC, 2011; Ytrestøyl, et al. 2015). This reduces the surplus of feed waste. However, not all efforts have improved the FCR. For instance, the inclusion of plant-based raw mate- rials into the feed of carnivorous fish may the FCR, especially in the early stages of their inclusion when their processing was not yet advanced (Hardy, 2010; Ytrestøyl et al., 2015). Regarding phosphorus, the main mechanisms to reduce effluent from feed have been to reduce phosphorus content in the feed and to increase its digestibility. This has been achieved, for example, by including phytase enzymes into feeds that consist of plant-based raw materials. Phytate is the main storage form of phosphorus in many plants, but phy- tate-bound phosphorus is not digestible to most fishes. Phy- tate enzymes, which can be added to feed, convert phytate into a form that can be utilized by fish. Experiments with phytate enzymes have documented decreases in the total phosphorus load to the environment from 30% to 100% in species such as tilapia, salmonids, carp, channel catfish, and shrimp (Cao et al., 2007; Lemos and Tacon, 2017). In Finland, phytase enzymes were introduced into commercial fish feed in 2009 with an expected decrease of 26% in phosphorus loading (Rehuraisio Oy, 25.3.2019, press release). The need to reduce the amount of phosphorus in the feed is counterbalanced by the physiological needs of fish because phosphorus is an essential nutrient for the growth, skeletal development and reproduction of fish. Genetic improvement The third factor explaining the improvement in the FCR, the special focus in the current study, is selective breeding. Genetic improvement in the FCRInd was 1.74% per gener- ation and 11.6% cumulatively across seven episodes of selec- tion across generations. The national breeding program was established in 1989–1990 by crossing four strains, and the first families were generated in 1992 (Siitonen, 1986; Kause et al., 2005). The use of modern fish material genetically improved for the FCR, instead of using the base population of fish, reduces feed costs by 18.3%, that is, 0.266€ per kg of ungutted fish. Before the breeding program was started, broodstock com- panies in Finland had been practicing mass selection for fast growth in freshwater. This is expected to improve the FCR at commercial sea farms but less efficiently than the national Table 3. Expected economic impact of using either (a) base-population fish or (b) selected fish with improved FCRInd 1 on farm costs and returns Cost, return, profit2 (a) Base-population fish (b) Genetically improved fish Change % improvement A. Total production, kg ungutted fish 9,188,000 9,188,000 B. Feed cost per kg feed, €/kg feed 1.382 1.382 C. Rearing cost per kg fish, €/kg ungutted fish 1.952 1.952 D. Total rearing costs, € (A×C) 17,934,976 17,934,976 E. FCRInd, kg feed delivered/ kg fish biomass gain 1.253 1.061 −0.1921 18.1% F. Total feed needed, kg (A×E) 11,516,239 9,748,468 −1,767,771 18.1% G. Total feed cost, €) (F×B) 15,915,443 13,472,383 −2,443,060 18.1% H. Feed cost per kg fish, €/kg ungutted fish (G/A) 1.732 1.466 −0.266 18.1% I. Total production costs, € (D+G) 33,850,419 31,407,359 −2,443,060 7.8% J. Total production cost per kg fish, €/kg ungutted fish (I/A) 3.684 3.418 −0.266 7.8% K. Total production of gutted fish, kg gutted fish (A×0.829 yield) 7,616,852 7,616,852 L. Return: Producer price per kg gutted fish, €/kg gutted fish3 4.830 4.830 M. Cost: Total production cost of kg gutted fish, €/kg gutted fish(I/K) 4.444 4.123 −0.321 7.8% N. Profit: Profit per kg gutted fish, €/kg gutted fish (L-M)4 0.386 0.707 0.321 118% 1Genetic improvement estimated in FCRInd in Figure 2. 2Capital letters indicate the formulas used to calculate the values. 3Price that a farmer gets from fish when selling it. 4Assumes that the reduced feed costs can be directly transformed to be profit, as the producer price is maintained fixed. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 Kause et al. 9 breeding program. Regarding growth, the genetic correla- tion between fresh and seawater production environments, which quantifies genotype reranking across the environments (GxE), is only 0.65 (Supplementary Appendix 1; Kause et al., 2005). In addition, the phenotypic correlation between growth and the FCR is typically modest at −0.34, whereas the genetic correlation is much stronger (Kause et al., 2016). For mass selection of growth, it is the phenotypic correlation that determines the strength of co-selection on FCR, as no genetic information is utilized in mass selection. These two factors reduce the power of mass selection in freshwater to improve the FCR at sea. The national breeding program that tests families in both fresh and seawater farms in a split-fam- ily design accounts for GxE and selects animals with the best EBVs for the traits recorded at sea, not just the best phenotypes recorded in fresh water (Kause et al., 2005). The selection criteria of the national breeding program include growth as well as traits that are genetically correlated with the FCR (Kause et al., 2016; Knap and Kause, 2018; Supple- mentary Appendix 1), making the improvement of the FCR more efficient. Our results showed that survival under commercial conditions was genetically improved by 7.8% percentage points across generations. A hypothetical scenario in which it was assumed that feeding was not adjusted for fish bio- mass loss due to mortality revealed that genetic improve- ment would have contributed to 44.9%–50.5% of the phenotypic improvement in the FCRFarm, up from 32.6% if only individual-level FCRInd was accounted for. It is good to note that the farm-level FCRFarm is calculated based on the feed provided at the farm and the harvested fish bio- mass. Farm-level FCRFarm may be influenced by mortality, and the farms that assess biomass in production and adjust feeding accordingly improve their FCRFarm. This is the norm today. However, during the early decades of farming, the mismatch between feeding and fish biomass was expected to have been large. The results highlight that mortality that can be influenced by breeding is a major determinant of the resource efficiency of a farm if mortality is not accounted for in feeding. For phosphorus and nitrogen loading, a simple assumption can be made that compared to the use of the base popula- tion, modern fish with a genetically improved FCR reduce N and P flow into water from farms by 18.3%. This assumes that 18.3% more of the feed with N and P is retained as fish biomass and its N and P reserves. This is a feasible scenario when focusing only on the improvement in the FCR. This does not reflect all the potential impacts that selective breed- ing can have on nutrient loading. The amount of N and P loading is also impacted by changes in body composition and retention efficiencies of N and P. More detailed analyses are needed to quantify these impacts. If N and P retention of fish is improved by a selection program, as the initial evidence suggests for our rainbow trout (Kause et al., 2016), the pres- ent estimates for the reduction in specific N and P loading are too low. Retention efficiencies of N and P would be key traits to be improved by selection (and feed development), but their recording on individual fish is very difficult. There are a lim- ited number of genetic studies on retention efficiencies, and the results are contradictory and with variable methodology (Thodesen et al., 1999; Kause et al., 2016; Gjedrem and Rye, 2018; Dvergedal et al., 2019). Direct vs. indirect selection The most effective way to improve the FCR by selection would be to select directly for the FCR (Kause et al., 2006, 2016). This is not done in any fish breeding program because this would require recording of feed intake on thousands of individual fish. This is a major challenge regarding fish. To overcome this issue, indirect selection via growth and body composition has been advocated as an effective alternative to improve the FCR (Quinton et al., 2007, Quillet et al., 2007; Kause et al., 2016; Knap and Kause, 2018). In the Finnish national breeding program for rainbow trout, multiple traits are selected and improved that are expected to improve the FCR indirectly, namely, growth, Sea muscle lipidBW%, Sea vis- ceral%, and Sea Fillet%. In farmed fish, selection for growth is expected to improve the FCR only moderately or not at all. This is a simple con- sequence of the genetic correlation between the FCR and growth ranging between 0.0 and −0.6, depending on the fish species (Knap and Kause, 2018). In fact, in some species such as brown trout (Salmo trutta L.), it has been shown that improvement of growth by selection does not improve the FCR (Mambrini et al., 2004). This is most likely because feed intake rather than feed utilization is the first trait to respond to selection for faster growth in species with limited or no domestication history. Both fillet% and lipid deposition are genetically related to the FCR in rainbow trout (Supplementary Appendix 1; Quil- let et al., 2007; Kause et al., 2016). Lean, high fillet% fish are expected to have a favorable FCR due to the lower energy needed to deposit wet weight growth compared to fatty fish (Jobling, 1994; Kause et al., 2016; Knap and Kause, 2018). In the selection index of the Finnish breeding program for rain- bow trout, Sea visceral% (% of viscera of wet body weight) is included in the selection index and selected against. This is to reduce excessive lipid deposition in the body cavity, as well as to improve Sea fillet%, given that the genetic correla- tion between Sea visceral% and Sea fillet% is highly negative, −0.71, and Sea visceral% has a higher heritability of 0.58 compared to 0.29 of Sea fillet% (Kause et al., 2007b; Sup- plementary Appendix 1). The FCRInd has a genetic correlation of −0.50 with Sea fillet% (which is genetically increased by selection), +0.54 with Sea muscle lipidBW% (which is genet- ically decreased by selection), and +0.10 with Sea visceral% (which is genetically decreased) (Supplementary Appendix 1; Kause et al., 2016). Genetic changes in these traits are hence likely to improve the FCRInd. In our study, genetic improvement in growth was 6.7% per generation. In a review of genetic responses in farmed fish, the average genetic gain for growth was 12.7% (Gjedrem and Rye, 2018). Our estimate is at the lower end of the observed range. In our national breeding program, multitrait selection in which the nucleus is not the production environment has been performed with up to 15 traits included in the selection index, and hence selection for growth is not that strong. In the review of Gjedrem and Rye (2018), many examples have only a few generations, and selection has been performed only for growth in a single environment. Reliable estimates for genetic improvement in the FCR in farmed fish are limited (Gjedrem and Rye, 2018). For instance, Thodesen et al. (1999) reported that Atlantic salmon selectively bred for rapid growth utilized feed bet- ter than their wild counterparts. In line with our analysis, D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data http://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jas/skac214#supplementary-data 10 Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 8 Quillet et al. (2007) reported realized genetic improvement in the FCR in the line selected for low muscle lipid%, cor- rected for body weight, in rainbow trout. de Verdal et al. (2022) observed a 12% genetic difference in tilapia lines that underwent divergent selection for the FCR. The study of Mambrini et al. (2004) on wild brown trout showed no genetic improvement in the FCR in response to major genetic changes in growth rate. It has been suggested that growth selection may also lead to more aggressive fish, rather than preferring the fish with the highest genetic potential for growth and the FCR, but the evidence for this is not con- clusive (Doyle and Talbot, 1986; Janhunen et al., 2012; de Verdal et al., 2019). Conclusions To conclude, industry-level farm data combined with the mul- tigenerational analysis of a rainbow trout breeding program imply that the feed conversion ratio at commercial farms has improved by over 53% and that the specific nutrient load- ing has been reduced by up to 70%. The genetic progress obtained with the national breeding program is expected to be over 30% of this improvement. These improvements have major positive effects on the cost structure of farms and on their environmental footprint. Supplementary Data Supplementary data are available at Journal of Animal Science online. Acknowledgments Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centre, Finland) is thanked for provid- ing data on farm-level performance. This project has re- ceived funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 818367—AquaIMPACT—Genomic and Nutritional Innovations for Genetically Superior Farmed Fish to Improve Efficiency in European Aquaculture, and from the Statutory Services of Natural Resources Institute Finland. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare no real or perceived conflicts of interest. Literature Cited Cao, L., W. Wang, C. Yang, Y. Yang, J. Diana, A. Yakupitiyage, Z. Luo, and D. Li. 2007. Application of microbial phytase in fish feed. Enzyme. Microb. Technol. 40:497–507. doi:10.1016/j. enzmictec.2007.01.007. Doyle, R. W., and A. J. Talbot. 1986. Artificial selection on growth and correlated selection on competitive behaviour in fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:1059–1064. doi:10.1139/f86-132. Dvergedal, H., J. Ødegård, M. Øverland, L. T. Mydland, and G. Kle- metsdal. 2019. Selection for feed efficiency in Atlantic salmon using individual indicator traits based on stable isotope profiling. Genet. Sel. Evol. 51:13. doi:10.1186/s12711-019-0455-9. FAO. 2018. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018. Rome, Italy: FAO. Gjedrem, T., and M. Rye. 2018. Selection response in fish and shellfish: a review. Rev. Aquac. 10:168–179. doi:10.1111/raq.12154. Halver, J. E., and R. W. Hardy, editors. 2002. Fish nutrition. 3rd ed. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. Hardy, R. W. 2010. Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets: effects of global demand and supplies of fishmeal. Aquac. Res. 41:770–776. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02349.x. Hayes, J. F., and W. G. Hill. 1981. Modification of estimates of pa- rameters in the construction of genetic selection indices (‘Bending’). Biometrics 37:483–493. Janhunen, M., A. Kause, H. Vehviläinen, and O. Järvisalo. 2012. Ge- netics of microenvironmental sensitivity of body weight in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) selected for improved growth. PLoS One 7:e38766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038766. Janhunen, M., A. Kause, H. Vehviläinen, A. Nousiainen, and H. Koski- nen. 2014. Correcting within-family pre-selection in genetic evalua- tion of growth—a simulation study on rainbow trout. Aquaculture 434:220–226. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.08.020. Jobling, M. 1994. Fish bioenergetics. London, UK: Chapman and Hall. Kankainen, M., K. Saarni, S. Airaksinen, and A. Kause. 2016a. Eco- nomic values for selective breeding of farmed large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Proc. Aquac. Europe 2016:498–499. Kankainen, M., S. Setälä, A. Kause, C. Quinton, S. Airaksinen, and J. Koskela. 2016b. Economic values of supply chain productivity and quality traits calculated for a farmed European whitefish breeding program. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 20:131–164. doi:10.1080/136573 05.2016.1155961. Kause, A., A. Kiessling, S. A. M. Martin, D. Houlihan, and K. Ruo- honen. 2016. Genetic improvement of feed conversion ratio via indirect selection against lipid deposition in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum). Br. J. Nutr. 116:1656–1665. doi:10.1017/S0007114516003603. Kause, A., T. Paananen, O. Ritola, and H. Koskinen. 2007b. Direct and indirect selection of visceral lipid weight, fillet weight and fil- let percent in a rainbow trout breeding programme. J. Anim. Sci. 85:3218–3227. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0332. Kause, A., O. Ritola, and T. Paananen. 2007a. Changes in the ex- pression of genetic characteristics across cohorts in skeletal de- formations of farmed salmonids. Genet. Sel. Evol. 39:529–543. doi:10.1186/1297-9686-39-5-529. Kause, A., O. Ritola, T. Paananen, E. Mäntysaari, and U. Eskelinen. 2003. Selection against early maturity in farmed rainbow trout: the quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism and genotype-by-envi- ronment interactions. Aquaculture 228:53–68. doi:10.1016/s0044- 8486(03)00244-8. Kause, A., O. Ritola, T. Paananen, H. Wahlroos, and E. A. Mäntysaari. 2005. Genetic trends in growth, sexual maturity and skeletal de- formations, and rate of inbreeding in a breeding programme for rainbow trout. Aquaculture 247:177–187. doi:10.1016/j.aquacul- ture.2005.02.023. Kause, A., L. H. Stien, K. Rungruangsak-Torrissen, O. Ritola, K. Ruo- honen, and A. Kiessling. 2008. Image analysis as a tool to facilitate selective breeding of quality traits in rainbow trout. Livest. Sci. 114:315–324. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.05.016. Kause, A., D. Tobin, A. Dobly, D. F. Houlihan, S. A. M. Martin, E. A. Mäntysaari, O. Ritola, and K. Ruohonen. 2006. Recording strat- egies and selection potential of feed intake measured using the X-ray method in rainbow trout. Genet. Sel. Evol. 38:389–410. doi:10.1186/1297-9686-38-4-389. Knap, P. W., and A. Kause. 2018. Phenotyping for genetic improvement of feed efficiency in fish: lessons from pig breeding. Front. Genet. 9:184. doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00184. Kuukka-Anttila, H., N. Peuhkuri, I. Kolari, T. Paananen, and A. Kause. 2010. Quantitative genetic architecture of parasite-induced cata- ract in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Heredity 104:20–27. doi:10.1038/hdy.2009.123. Lemos, D., and A. G. J. Tacon. 2017. Use of phytases in fish and shrimp feeds: a review. Rev. Aquac. 9:266–282. doi:10.1111/raq.12138. Lidauer, M., K. Matilainen, E. Mäntysaari, T. Pitkänen, M. Taskinen, and I Strandén. 2017. MiX99: technical reference guide for MiX99 solver. Luke, http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201801182111. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.01.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.01.007 https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-132 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-019-0455-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12154 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02349.x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038766 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.08.020 https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1155961 https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1155961 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516003603 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0332 https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-39-5-529 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0044-8486(03)00244-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0044-8486(03)00244-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.02.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.02.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.05.016 https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-38-4-389 https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00184 https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2009.123 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12138 http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201801182111 Kause et al. 11 Madsen, P., and J. Jensen. 2013. DMU version 6. https://dmu.ghpc. au.dk/dmu/. Mambrini, M., F. Meìdale, M. P. Sanchez, B. Recalde, B. Chevassus, L. Labbeì, E. Quillet, and T. Boujard. 2004. Selection for growth in brown trout increases feed intake capacity without affecting main- tenance and growth requirements. J. Anim. Sci. 82:2865–2875. doi:10.2527/2004.82102865x. Martinez, V., A. Kause, E. A. Mäntysaari, and A. Mäki-Tanila. 2006. The use of alternative breeding schemes to enhance genetic im- provement in rainbow trout. II. Two-stage selection. Aquaculture 254:195–202. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.11.011. NRC. 2011. Nutrient requirements of fish and shrimp. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Quillet, E., S. Le Guillou, J. Aubin, L. Labbé, B. Fauconneau, and F. Médale. 2007. Response of a lean muscle and a fat muscle rain- bow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) line on growth, nutrient utilization, body composition and carcass traits when fed two different diets. Aquaculture 269:220–231. doi:10.1016/j.aquacul- ture.2007.02.047. Quinton, C., A. Kause, K. Ruohonen, and J. Koskela. 2007. Genet- ic relationships of body composition and feed utilization traits in European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus L.) and implica- tions for selective breeding in fishmeal- and soybean meal-based diet environments. J. Anim. Sci. 85:3198–3208. doi:10.2527/ jas.2006-792. Ritola, O., T. Paananen, and A. Kause. 2006. Successful divergent selec- tion for growth and age at maturity in the Finnish breeding pro- gramme for rainbow trout: genetic responses in two selection lines. Proc. Inter. Symp. Genet. Aquac. 2006:89. doi:10.1016/J.AQUA- CULTURE.2007.07.100. Seppälä, J., F. Silvenius, J. Grönroos, T. Mäkinen, K. Silvo, and E. Storhammar. 2001. Kirjolohen tuotanto ja ympäristö. Suomen Ympäristö: 529. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/40624. Siitonen, L. 1986. Factors affecting growth in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) stocks. Aquaculture 57:185–191. doi:10.1016/0044- 8486(86)90196-1. SYKE. 2015. Itämeren fosforikuorma Suomesta. Suomen Ympäristöke- skus. www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Meri/Mika_on_Itameren_tila/Ita- meren_fosforikuorma_Suomesta Thodesen, J., B. Grisdale-Helland, S. J. Helland, and B. Gjerde. 1999. Feed intake, growth and feed utilization of offspring from wild and selected Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 180:237–246. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(97)00284-6. Vehviläinen, H., A. Kause, H. Kuukka-Anttila, H. Koskinen, and T. Paananen. 2012. Untangling the positive genetic correlation be- tween rainbow trout growth and survival. Evol. Appl. 5:732–745. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00251.x. De Verdal, H., C. M. O’Connell, W. Mekkawy, M. Vandeputte, B. Cha- taine, M. -L. Bégout, and J. A. H. Benzie. 2019. Agonistic behaviour and feed efficiency in juvenile Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Aquaculture 505:271–279. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.02.067. de Verdal, H., P. Haffray, V. Douchet, and M. Vandeputte. 2022. Im- pact of a divergent selective breeding programme on individual feed conversion ratio in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus mea- sured in groups by video-recording. Aquaculture 548:737572. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737572. Wideskog, M. 2000. Kalankasvatuksen kuormitustilastoinnin luotet- tavuus vuosina 1997-1998. Lounais-Suomen ympäristökeskuksen moniste 3:2000. Ytrestøyl, T., T. S. Aas, and T. Åasgård. 2015. Utilisation of feed resourc- es in production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway. Aqua- culture 448:365–374. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.06.023. Ziegler, F., U. Winther, E. Hognes, A. Emanuelsson, V. Sund, and H. Ellingsen. 2013. The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood market. J. Ind. Ecol. 17:103–116. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00485.x. D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jas/article/100/8/skac214/6604851 by Finnish Forest R esearch Institute user on 10 February 2023 https://dmu.ghpc.au.dk/dmu/ https://dmu.ghpc.au.dk/dmu/ https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82102865x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.11.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.02.047 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.02.047 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-792 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-792 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2007.07.100 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2007.07.100 http://hdl.handle.net/10138/40624 https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(86)90196-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(86)90196-1 https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Meri/Mika_on_Itameren_tila/Itameren_fosforikuorma_Suomesta https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Meri/Mika_on_Itameren_tila/Itameren_fosforikuorma_Suomesta https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(97)00284-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00251.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.02.067 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737572 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.06.023 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00485.x Kansilehti_Improvement in feed effciency and reduction Improvement in feed efficiency