Treatment Techniques of Mantle Piece and Nucleus in Implantation of Pinctada martensii Ⅱ:The Experimentation of Pearl Producing with Different Treatment Solution in Xuwen,Guangdong

WANG Mei-fang,YU Xiang-yong,LI Yong-mei,BIN CHENG-yong,WAN Zheng-ping,CHEN Xiao-han
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-9159.2010.06.002
2010-01-01
Abstract:Through the experiments of pearl culture in sea farm,further optimization and selection,treatment solution of mantle piece and pearl nuclear suitable for pearl culture sea area of Guangdong was discovered.The results show as the follows: 1) the matched appropriate treatment solution had an effect of reducing nucleus spitting rate.The nucleus spitting rate in Group W0,Y3 were only 31-32% which was obviously lower than those of the control group(46.2%).This suggested matched solution had an effect of reducing nucleus spitting rate significantly.2) The implanted oyster’s death,which has a connection with the behavior of nucleus spitting,occurs mainly at early stage of pearl culture,.3) The ingredient C in the treatment solution exerts influence on nucleus spitting rate.0.6% of C2 was not the suitable amount to be added in treatment solution.But adding 1% of C3 into treatment solution can reduce the rate of nucleus spitting.4) Programs suited for matching W0,W1,Y3 are selected.Namely,treatment solution C3 is the best match for W0,W1,Y3.W0 matched group,with 57.8% of survived oysters,67.5% of qualified pearls,is the most suitable group for pearl culture.5) After 8 months of culture,the number of produced pearl per 100 oysters was 101.2,and the rate of survival and pearls of high quality in group W0 were 57.8%,67.5% respectively,which increased significantly compared with traditional treatment group(control).6) Comparisons with different duration(8,10,13 months) of pearl culturing of Group W0,W1,Y3 were conducted.Y3 matched group has better effect on pearl culture when duration was as long as one year.7) The index of evaluation can be used to judge the quality of pearl culture.The evaluation results are the same with what have been analyzed and evaluated.But it is more intuitive to quantify the value judgment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?