Seasonal changes in broodstock spawning performance and egg quality in ballan wrasse (Labrus bergylta)

Sea lice continue to be one of the largest issues for the salmon farming industry and the use of ballan wrasse (Labrus bergylta) as a biological control is considered to be one of the most sustainable solutions in development. Broodstock management has proved challenging in the initial phases due to the significant lack of understanding of basic reproductive physiology and behaviour in the species. The aim of the study was to monitor captive breeding populations throughout a spawning season to examine timing and duration of spawning,quantify egg production, and look at seasonal changes in egg quality parameters as well as investigate the parental contribution to spawning events. A clear spawning rhythm was shown with 3-5 spawning periods inclusive of spawning windows lasting 1-9 days followed by inter spawning intervals of 8-12 days. Fertilization rate remained consistently high (> 87.5%) over the spawning season and did not differ significantly between spawning populations. Hatch rate was variable (0-97.5 %), but peaked in the middle of the spawning season. Meanoocyte diameter and gum layer thickness decreased slightly over the spawning season with no significant differences between spawning populations. Fatty acid (FA) profile of eggs remained consistent throughout the season and with the exception of high levels of ARA (3.8 ± 0.5 % of total FA) the FA profile was similar to that observed in other marine fish species. Parental contribution analysis showed 3 out of 6 spawning events to be single paired mating while the remaining 3 had contributions from multiple parents. Furthermore, the proposed multiple batch spawning nature of this species was confirmed with proof of a single femalecontributing to two separate spawning events. Overall this work represents the first comprehensive data set of spawning activity of captive ballan wrasse, and as such and will be helpful in formulating sustainable broodstock management plans for the species.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.