Wild Caught vs Farm Raised

[Cichlid savage II]

I was listening to a podcast and there was a discussion being had about Wild Caught vs Farm Raised fish in the aquarium trade. Which is better, easier to keep/breed etc.

My first thought is that to the basic fish keeper it doesn't matter that much and they don't really take that into consideration. I was in this category when I started keeping fish many years ago. However, for the more advanced fish keeper wild caught specimens will have a special allure. I would love to have a couple wild caught specimens of some of my favorite fish. I am also in a financial position where I can afford some of them. I also know that some species are not bred in the trade so wild caught are the only option.

What are your thoughts?

 

[tlindsey]

I was listening to a podcast and there was a discussion being had about Wild Caught vs Farm Raised fish in the aquarium trade. Which is better, easier to keep/breed etc.

My first thought is that to the basic fish keeper it doesn't matter that much and they don't really take that into consideration. I was in this category when I started keeping fish many years ago. However, for the more advanced fish keeper wild caught specimens will have a special allure. I would love to have a couple wild caught specimens of some of my favorite fish. I am also in a financial position where I can afford some of them. I also know that some species are not bred in the trade so wild caught are the only option.

What are your thoughts?

WC species have better traits for example genetically stronger, shape and color will be better. The major downside to a wc species is conditioning it for living from its natural range. That's why great veteran members here too many to name dwell on things such as PH, GH, and KH of water.
The farmed CB species will be conditioned after a couple of generations but will also have weaker genes and possibly will look different from it's wc cousin.
Like you stated the average fish keeper could care less but for a true hobbyist breeder it's more important to them to know where there fish came from.

 

[duanes]

In some cases pond bred may be easier to care for, in that they have evolved over generations to water from a local area, or breeder aquarists water and tanks, that might be closer to what a normal aquarist might have as tap water.
An example of a cichlid "not" well adapted to different water types it has not evolved to live in, might be a fish like Uaru fernadensypezii, or certain wild angelfish or tetras.
The above cichlids come from Amazonian black, low pH water (4 to 6) and are fairly new to the trade, so not commonly pond bred.
Or......those aquarists that do breed them, have mimicked water conditions to the natural type the fish experience.
Put these species in non-similar water types and they don't do well
I have for years wanted the Uaru species above, but as wild caught at minimum $60 a pop ( because I always buy a group of 6 or more, to breed), in my former WI hard, high conductivity, high pH (@ 8) water, getting them would have been a foolish waste of money, time, and fish.
On the other hand.....if a wild caught species fits in your local tap water type, wild fish can be very robust and work perfectly.
Any Central Americans, or rift lake Africans worked well in my area. So I often got wild types if available

At the moment I have 5 wild caught Andinoacara coerleopunctatu,s first caught for me in early 2019.
They are robust, have spawned a number of times and adapted well to whatever I feed.
I started with over a dozen though, the alpha male reduced that amount over time to only 5.
Whether this is because it is wild, or that my tank is only 180 gal (perceived as territorially wimpy for a wild fish) I am not sure,
They are also keenly aware their surrounding environment.
If a bird shadow as small as a grackle passes overhead, they take cover (the tank is outside on the patio)
Although they are normally bold, my shadow or appearance near the tank, also makes them wary.
So for those wanting a doglike swim up to the owner and beg, wet pet, wild may not be the right choice.
All fish in the tank below are wild caught here in Panama, so water conditions are natural
Panamanian Tank

 

[neutrino]

I don't think there's a simple, one size fits all answer. Some species lose something after generations being captive bred, some don't at all. For example, see this recent post or consider red head tapajos geos and many others. While a few species do lose certain visible wild traits over time, others look just as good if they're responsibly bred. Some may lose a measure of 'fitness' for their original wild environment in the process of adapting to different aquarium conditions while other species have the built in plasticity to adapt on the fly to certain conditions; for example there's this, which makes some of the common 'you can't keep them together because of diet' wisdom moot if you feed a good basic pellet:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01589.x

Second, intestinal plasticity has been demonstrated experimentally in perch (Olsson et al. 2007), prickleback fish (German et al. 2006) and Tropheus (P. McIntyre and Y. Vadeboncoeur, unpublished data), and observations in Lake Malawi cichlids suggest shortening of the gut in mouthbrooding females that are unable to feed regularly (Reinthal 1989). More generally, plasticity in internal organs in response to environmental stimuli has been documented in many vertebrates (reviewed in Piersma & Lindstrom 1997; Starck 1999), including fasting snakes (Starck & Beese 2002), migrating birds (Karasov et al. 2004) and rodents in fluctuating environments (Naya, Bozinovic & Karasov 2008), and the physiological mechanisms underlying gastrointestinal plasticity are well understood in several taxa (Starck 2003). Thus, we believe that the observed variation in T. brichardi intestine length is a largely plastic response to differences in the nutrient content of their algal diet.

Some have a wider natural geographic range and/or water range than many give them credit for, some are more water specific and may or may not adapt over captive generations. Some species have a limited wild population, for example Geo mirabilis are limited to a particular stretch of a single river, meaning constant collection would deplete the wild population and it's a good thing they can be captive bred. Others? Well, there's this:

...Note that cardinals mostly do not come from the blackwater habitat that some think or some articles say they do. So there's that also, mistaken ideas about the natural habitat or range of some fish.

 

[dogofwar]

There is a widespread misperception that successive generations of captive generations of fish somehow have "inferior genetics."

This misperception is based on the (false) idea that captive fish somehow lose the genes that make wild fish colorful or traits desirable to aquarists. Setting aside the fact that the babies of two wild fish (F1 fish) literally have the genes of wild fish, it also conflates the idea that the traits that make a fish well suited for life in the wild are the same as the ones that make it well-suited for aquarium life. And they're not the same.

Properly bred and raised captive fish can and often do have more color, grow larger, live longer, healthier lives than wild fish. Of course poorly bred, poorly raised captive fish can be inferior. Raising fish with natural sunlight and high quality food can make a HUGE difference.

There are no shortage of examples of how selective breeding has enhanced the traits that aquarists desire in captive lines. Fish like "Red Tiger" Motaguensis are all from a handful of wild fish collected in 2005-6. Same with Honduran Red Points and lots of other fish. And with proper breeding they have more color, size and all the rest than their wild counterparts.

Especially with African Rift Lake fish, there's next to zero need to take wild fish from the lakes. There are massive losses in shipping and handling. There is way more cost and carbon footprint and the fish are - with few exceptions - bred domestically and widely available. Ironically, collection of wild fish for the hobby has actually degraded wild populations of fish: Collectors take the most colorful examples from a population so the remaining wild fish look different than they would if undisturbed. So captive breeders need to selectively breed the successive generations of wild-collected fish for them to look like what people want.

Not that this isn't already the case, but the answer is for farms to sell high quality captive fish as wild. Hobbyists are happy because they have beautiful fish that they perceive to be "superior" and "exclusive"... farms can sell fish for more and spend less on shipping, import fees and losses... and the lakes can deal with one less set of environmental issues. Win-win-win.

 

[Cichlid savage II]

There is a widespread misperception that successive generations of captive generations of fish somehow have "inferior genetics."

This misperception is based on the (false) idea that captive fish somehow lose the genes that make wild fish colorful or traits desirable to aquarists. Setting aside the fact that the babies of two wild fish (F1 fish) literally have the genes of wild fish, it also conflates the idea that the traits that make a fish well suited for life in the wild are the same as the ones that make it well-suited for aquarium life. And they're not the same.

Properly bred and raised captive fish can and often do have more color, grow larger, live longer, healthier lives than wild fish. Of course poorly bred, poorly raised captive fish can be inferior. Raising fish with natural sunlight and high quality food can make a HUGE difference.

There are no shortage of examples of how selective breeding has enhanced the traits that aquarists desire in captive lines. Fish like "Red Tiger" Motaguensis are all from a handful of wild fish collected in 2005-6. Same with Honduran Red Points and lots of other fish. And with proper breeding they have more color, size and all the rest than their wild counterparts.

Especially with African Rift Lake fish, there's next to zero need to take wild fish from the lakes. There are massive losses in shipping and handling. There is way more cost and carbon footprint and the fish are - with few exceptions - bred domestically and widely available. Ironically, collection of wild fish for the hobby has actually degraded wild populations of fish: Collectors take the most colorful examples from a population so the remaining wild fish look different than they would if undisturbed. So captive breeders need to selectively breed the successive generations of wild-collected fish for them to look like what people want.

Not that this isn't already the case, but the answer is for farms to sell high quality captive fish as wild. Hobbyists are happy because they have beautiful fish that they perceive to be "superior" and "exclusive"... farms can sell fish for more and spend less on shipping, import fees and losses... and the lakes can deal with one less set of environmental issues. Win-win-win.

I agree with a lot of what you stated. However, selling captive bred fish as wild caught is dishonest in it's best light, just to charge a higher price is unscrupulous and fraudulent. It quite possibly could expose the seller to civil and criminal penalties. And I would hope they get run out of business. If you are a responsible breeder and producing a superior fish that should stand on it's own regardless of perceptions of superiority or exclusivity. JMT

 

[neutrino]

There's long been a question whether certain 'wild' imports are actually collected from wild waters or from enclosures of one type or another, more often with rift lake species than South American. Some fish farmers are more responsible and more up front about their policies than others. This interview with Pierre Brichard's daughter Mireille is well known in some circles (it's in English once Mireille appears at about 1:57), where she explains their collection vs breeding policies-- very enlightening regarding the advantages of captive bred vs. wild with certain species.

A few years after the interview, her husband died and she closed the long running facility.

 

[duanes]

One thing I have noticed in pond raised/aquarium raised cichlids (and even some live bearers), especially rheophillic species, is a change or loss in body aerodynamics.
In ponds with minimal flow, or tanks with simple aeration/filtration, HOB, canister flows, these species tend to slightly loose the torpedo/aerodynamic shape compared to wild varieties where a constant riverine wall of water is normal.
Whether this is important to the average aquarist may be moot, but.....
It is why I try to maintain a strong linear flow down the length of tanks with riverine species.
On my current Andinoacara tank, by using a 1500 GPH pump, this helps, although compared to the current/flow these fish were caught in, it is at certain seasonal times a tad wimpy.
In the article below, where soon after a dam was erected, and flow changed, skeletal changes in fish were rapid, and noticeable
PDFRapid morphological change in multiple cichlid ecotypes.pdf

And compare the streamlined body shape of the wild Poecilia in this Cenote (the flow is minimal, yet laminar upwelling is noticeable while snorkeling) to the more plump bodied aquarium strains normally seen in LFSs.
Of course exercise due to space, over feeding, and selective breeding for odd shapes, may also account for certain unnatural roundness in some aquarium fish.
Aktun Ha

 

[neutrino]

One thing I have noticed in pond raised/aquarium raised cichlids (and even some live bearers), especially rheophillic species, is a change or loss in body aerodynamics.
In ponds with minimal flow, or tanks with simple aeration/filtration, HOB, canister flows, these species tend to slightly loose the torpedo/aerodynamic shape compared to wild varieties where a constant riverine wall of water in normal.

Good point, there's that with some species. Like you say, some may not mind, notice, or be aware of it. Another example of body profile vs water flow: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180427100312.htm

Another thing is feeding imo, feeding for max growth, feeding some species to get them thick as possible, or feeding according to a pre-conceived formula (feed all they can eat in x minutes) vs feeding to maintain a more natural body profile.

 

[dogofwar]

I was, of course, being a little tongue-in-cheek about selling farm-raised fish as wild. But

But it comes back to the question of why do hobbyists want wild fish? And many will say that they want wild fish because they equate "wild fish" with "the best" color, size, vigor, etc. compared to captive-bred fish (because they believe they have "superior genes"). And they want to have the "best fish"...

Reality is that you can find pond-raised fish that are superior to wild ones in all of these characteristics (and don't have the internal parasites, wounds and trauma from travel associated with wild ones). So why do people persist in still wanting "wild fish"?

I agree with a lot of what you stated. However, selling captive bred fish as wild caught is dishonest in it's best light, just to charge a higher price is unscrupulous and fraudulent. It quite possibly could expose the seller to civil and criminal penalties. And I would hope they get run out of business. If you are a responsible breeder and producing a superior fish that should stand on it's own regardless of perceptions of superiority or exclusivity. JMT

I agree with a lot of what you stated. However, selling captive bred fish as wild caught is dishonest in it's best light, just to charge a higher price is unscrupulous and fraudulent. It quite possibly could expose the seller to civil and criminal penalties. And I would hope they get run out of business. If you are a responsible breeder and producing a superior fish that should stand on it's own regardless of perceptions of superiority or exclusivity. JMT