Wow! It would appear that there is actually an argument to support inbreeding as long as it is not done on a repetitive basis. And to encourage bettter traits such as strength of pattern etc. I just asumed it should not happen, but the more i read the more i think it very possible we all have a chance of getting rays that have been inbred. I was very careful when i purchased mine to ensure all 3 rays came from different parents. I only have the sellers word for it that they are indeed from different parents. That being said i trust the seller so i am happy with what i purchased.
Mixing parents and siblings together for breeding
- Thread starter jim barry
- Start date
just to put my two penneth in. i went out of my way to get unrelated rays when i first got mine but im not against line breeding as long as its not done too much and new blood is brought in.
i think its how most species have got to where they are today.
i was told years ago by a well known ray keeper (amongst other things) in the uk thats its regularly done and that breeding parents with siblings is how alot of the better rays have been produced.
i imagine a pack of dogs in the wild would inbreed quite frequently just like most things would given the chance. animals dont really care. as well as considering how we got to the different breeds of dogs and just about anything else that we have bred.
im sure theres a fair bit of inbreeding going on for most fish but we just choose to ignore it as its generally a touchy subject.
the comment about rays not traveling far in the wild and so increasing the chances of inbreeding in the wild is very interesting. from what i hear about the dams that have been build over there i can only imagine that wild inbreeding is going to be much more likely.
the more i think about it the more i think it happens in the wild. lots of animals dont go far from where they were born and so stay reasonably close to siblings / parents.
flocks of birds all stay together so say a group of 6 goldfinches flying around in the wild. they have chicks that grow up and stay with the flock. a few get eaten by one of many local cats and the flock goes on breeding.
fish in the local ponds dont have much choice and i doubt the fish in the local stretch of river often venture past the weirs if ever.
i guess the real problem would be if the parents had health problems and you bred them.
i think its how most species have got to where they are today.
i was told years ago by a well known ray keeper (amongst other things) in the uk thats its regularly done and that breeding parents with siblings is how alot of the better rays have been produced.
i imagine a pack of dogs in the wild would inbreed quite frequently just like most things would given the chance. animals dont really care. as well as considering how we got to the different breeds of dogs and just about anything else that we have bred.
im sure theres a fair bit of inbreeding going on for most fish but we just choose to ignore it as its generally a touchy subject.
the comment about rays not traveling far in the wild and so increasing the chances of inbreeding in the wild is very interesting. from what i hear about the dams that have been build over there i can only imagine that wild inbreeding is going to be much more likely.
the more i think about it the more i think it happens in the wild. lots of animals dont go far from where they were born and so stay reasonably close to siblings / parents.
flocks of birds all stay together so say a group of 6 goldfinches flying around in the wild. they have chicks that grow up and stay with the flock. a few get eaten by one of many local cats and the flock goes on breeding.
fish in the local ponds dont have much choice and i doubt the fish in the local stretch of river often venture past the weirs if ever.
i guess the real problem would be if the parents had health problems and you bred them.
Just to toss something in the mix:
'F' is a wild caught animal. F1 (the offspring), F2 etc would all be captive bred...as would any subsiquent F number. So saying people will pay more for an 'F' animal vs captive bred isn't really saying much. The F number just allows us to track how many generations away from the orignal wild caught genetics that particular animal is. In the aquarium/zoo world it's very important to track genetics using that as a reference when using things like ISIS to follow the population under human care at facilities willing to participate.
'F' is a wild caught animal. F1 (the offspring), F2 etc would all be captive bred...as would any subsiquent F number. So saying people will pay more for an 'F' animal vs captive bred isn't really saying much. The F number just allows us to track how many generations away from the orignal wild caught genetics that particular animal is. In the aquarium/zoo world it's very important to track genetics using that as a reference when using things like ISIS to follow the population under human care at facilities willing to participate.
I'm sure we have had this debate before
Yes F2 means captive bred but numbers after that mean something totally different to how many gens have been born in captivity
I say this because when frank and Nico said I was the first person in the world to breed F3 p14 they was told F3 means something completely different not the amount of gens that have been born in captivity like you state
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
In genetics, F is for the 'Fixation index'. It started back in the 20's or 30's if I remember right. (School was many years ago!) It's used in tracking generations away from a certain point - in this case usually the wild caught parents.
Was told F3 means pups born from captive bred parents
Then I was told that's not true so I just gav up in the end it's to confusing as it one rule for some fish and another rule for others
It only matters to me if they are wild caught or captive bred
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
