Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29378517›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2018

Cost-benefit analysis of aquaculture breeding programs.

Kasper Janssen, Helmut Saatkamp, Hans Komen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Selective Breeding for Genetic Improvement ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The State of "Frontiers in genetics · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kasper JanssenAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands. kasper.janssen@wur.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-8860-8226
Helmut SaatkampAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hans KomenAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfitability of breeding programs is a key determinant in the adoption of selective breeding, and can be evaluated using cost-benefit analysis. There are many options to design breeding programs, with or without a multiplier tier. Our objectives were to evaluate different breeding program designs for aquaculture and to optimize the number of selection candidates for these programs.

methodsThe baseline was based on an existing breeding program for gilthead seabream, where improvement of the nucleus had priority over improvement of the multiplier tier, which was partly replaced once every 3 years. Alternative breeding programs considered were annual multiplier tier replacement, annual multiplier tier replacement with priority on improvement of the multiplier tier, and a program without a multiplier tier. Cost-benefit analyses were performed to compare breeding programs. The outcomes were used to describe relationships between profitability and the number of selection candidates, length of the time horizon, and production output, and to estimate the optimum numbers of selection candidates.

resultsThe baseline breeding program was profitable after 5 years and reached a net present value of 2.9 million euro in year 10. All alternative programs were more profitable up to year 17. The program without a multiplier tier was the most profitable one up to year 22, followed by the program with annual multiplier tier replacement and nucleus priority. The optimum number of selection candidates increased with the length of the time horizon and production output.

conclusionsThe baseline breeding program was profitable after 5 years. For a short time horizon, putting priority on improvement of the multiplier tier over the nucleus is more profitable than putting priority on nucleus improvement, and vice versa for a long time horizon. Use of a multiplier tier increases the delay between costs made for selection and resulting benefits. Thus, avoiding the use of a multiplier tier will increase the profitability of the breeding program in the short term. The optimum number of selection candidates increases with the length of the time horizon and production output. Using too many selection candidates relative to the optimum leads to less reduction in profitability than using too few selection candidates.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticAnimalsAquacultureBreedingCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFisheriesMale

Identifiers

PMID29378517
PMCPMC5789754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.