Here’s a freshman question for all you genomics experts - which I genuinely don’t know the answer to:
If “exceptional” koi are random color mutations, why are breeder koi so expensive?
(Restated: Is there a difference between a desirable “trait” and a “mutation” in a carp which has been inbred for thousands of years?)
I understand why someone would want to purchase a $500, 10-year-old koi for their pond, like, to look at... for their color, iridescence, or behaviors, from an aesthetic point of view, but I don’t understand why someone who wants to cut their teeth in the koi breeding game, as if that’s possible, which I don’t think it is really financially,. I don’t understand why breeders might pay $3,000 or $10,000 for a “breeder“ koi for its characteristic traits, or “superior genetics” if the two parents are two rare examples of beautiful mutations which also happen to be healthy.
While I don’t know much about genetics, won’t breeding two heavily mutated carp produce offspring with a large percentage of fatal mutations, and most others of ordinary or less interesting colors? Is there really a higher probability of getting higher quality koi offspring, or a higher probability of getting the same colors as the parents then with just random bottom tank picks?
I’m asking about after a conversation with someone knowledgeable in this field. Who claims that the best koi are merely selected out of hundreds of thousands of specimens in a large mud pond, and it’s just the luck of the draw and the care of the fish. For sure, that seems to be a big part of it. Being able to flip several thousand coins as it were. But this person also seem to claim that breeding with quote on quote superior genetics won’t produce koi of superior quality any more or less than breeding average koi. In fact, breeder koi might produce even fewer desirable offspring then a less in-bred or mutated specimen, because they are healthier and have a more diverse gene pool between the two parents.
I’m not so sure.
Is there any truth to this?
If “exceptional” koi are random color mutations, why are breeder koi so expensive?
(Restated: Is there a difference between a desirable “trait” and a “mutation” in a carp which has been inbred for thousands of years?)
I understand why someone would want to purchase a $500, 10-year-old koi for their pond, like, to look at... for their color, iridescence, or behaviors, from an aesthetic point of view, but I don’t understand why someone who wants to cut their teeth in the koi breeding game, as if that’s possible, which I don’t think it is really financially,. I don’t understand why breeders might pay $3,000 or $10,000 for a “breeder“ koi for its characteristic traits, or “superior genetics” if the two parents are two rare examples of beautiful mutations which also happen to be healthy.
While I don’t know much about genetics, won’t breeding two heavily mutated carp produce offspring with a large percentage of fatal mutations, and most others of ordinary or less interesting colors? Is there really a higher probability of getting higher quality koi offspring, or a higher probability of getting the same colors as the parents then with just random bottom tank picks?
I’m asking about after a conversation with someone knowledgeable in this field. Who claims that the best koi are merely selected out of hundreds of thousands of specimens in a large mud pond, and it’s just the luck of the draw and the care of the fish. For sure, that seems to be a big part of it. Being able to flip several thousand coins as it were. But this person also seem to claim that breeding with quote on quote superior genetics won’t produce koi of superior quality any more or less than breeding average koi. In fact, breeder koi might produce even fewer desirable offspring then a less in-bred or mutated specimen, because they are healthier and have a more diverse gene pool between the two parents.
I’m not so sure.
Is there any truth to this?
