Wild or selective line bred?

[cchhcc]

Line bred...don't need more fish pulled out of rivers/oceans.

If it is done in a sustainable way, taking them from native waters could be the BEST thing for the fish. Many areas of the world are actively collected by native people, and that collection provides a higher income than they can get from other industries, many of which (farming, mining) are very destructive to habitats. So, in protecting their livelihoods they end up protecting habitats.

Cardinal tetras, discus, and a few other species are practically industries to themselves in SA.

Sustainability is the key though, and I know where you're coming from. We probably agree for the most part.

 

[MonsterMinis]

I picked line bred.. because I don't actively breed cichlids.. If I where to get into breeding cichlids i'de look into Wild and F1 fish. But to me thats not important, I want a hearty, healthy looking animal, that represents the breed well. And a majority of WC fish are far more sensitive then captive bred. So for pets I'de lean towards the captive bred, If I was a breeder or wanted to breed. I'de lean towards Wild or F1 fish...

 

[the animal guy]

I voted wild because line bred are basicly mutants. To clarify that a bit, line bred fish are selectively bred to have certain characteristics that are not found in the natural/wild forms of the species. Basicly mutations or deformities that are visualy apealling to us humans but not really benificial to the fish. Most all fish kept in the cichlid hobby have a simple elegance that nature has provided that is both beautiful and functional. To try and enhance the colors, change fin length, or pattern in many ways fundamentally changes what makes a species what it is .

youre off topic. I did not put mutants or deformities as an option. Lets not drag it elsewhere.


Wild (average looking fish but from the wild)

or

line bred (Selected for it's quality. Nothing different looking from wild except better quality. It could be line bred for quality, colors, health, ect., whatever you like, just better but not wild!)

Both meet standards and represent the breed well.

 

[the animal guy]

i perfer wild type fish myself, imo there is no need to mess with nature

 

[flowerpower]

I have a strong preference for wild or f1 fish.
The main reason why wild fish are appealing to me is because I can be fairly certain that they are unrelated. These, I feel, are the best specimens to spawn because their f1 offspring aren't inbred.
F1 fish are also well suited for breeding if unrelated; however, most people buy small groups of f1's from a single brood, grow them out, pair them off, then spawn them. This results in inbred f2 offspring. For this reason I consider f2's for show fish but not breeding stock. It's hard to be sure whether the parents of f2 fish were from the same spawn or not.
As for line breeding, I feel that this is a great way to accentuate favorable features in a particular species. As the wild fish become more and more scarce of hard to acquire, line breeding may become a more appealing option to a larger number of serious hobbyists. Applying simple Mendelian genetics to fish species has brought out some striking variants and can be a rewarding endeavor for a breeder.
I guess it's a matter of perspective and personal taste.

 

[the animal guy]

I have a strong preference for wild or f1 fish.
The main reason why wild fish are appealing to me is because I can be fairly certain that they are unrelated. These, I feel, are the best specimens to spawn because their f1 offspring aren't inbred.
F1 fish are also well suited for breeding if unrelated; however, most people buy small groups of f1's from a single brood, grow them out, pair them off, then spawn them. This results in inbred f2 offspring. For this reason I consider f2's for show fish but not breeding stock. It's hard to be sure whether the parents of f2 fish were from the same spawn or not.
As for line breeding, I feel that this is a great way to accentuate favorable features in a particular species. As the wild fish become more and more scarce of hard to acquire, line breeding may become a more appealing option to a larger number of serious hobbyists. Applying simple Mendelian genetics to fish species has brought out some striking variants and can be a rewarding endeavor for a breeder.
I guess it's a matter of perspective and personal taste.

 

[the animal guy]

Im sorry. I guess you mean like dont change the way nature made the fish? Youre not cross breeding. Your breeding quality select bred pure breed fish.

 

[thatcichlidguy]

youre off topic. I did not put mutants or deformities as an option. Lets not drag it elsewhere.


Wild (average looking fish but from the wild)

or

line bred (Selected for it's quality. Nothing different looking from wild except better quality. It could be line bred for quality, colors, health, ect., whatever you like, just better but not wild!)

Both meet standards and represent the breed well.

No, I'm not off topic. I feel that you don't really understand what You were asking. While fish can be bred for things like you describe, they do not improve the species. Generally it has the opposite effect. Any change we make by selective/line breeding IS taking a mutation and fixing it into the genetic make up of the fish. Whether it's for color, finage, size, or whatever. I don't know that any of them make a fish "better" but I do know that many make them worse.

I should also point out that when compaired to their wild relatives, many commecially bred fish look unspectacular. Wild fish ,or high quality offspring from wild stock, on the other hand are IMO as good as you get without altering what makes a Covict a Convict, a GT a GT , Oscar an Oscar, ect. While a Koi Angel may look pretty , it's markings are a bulls eye for predators and a warning sign for prey. Hardly an improvement , and not representitive of the species as a whole. Once we start monkeying around with things we rarely make them better.

 

[dogofwar]

It all depends on how you define "better"...

A lot of people define bigger, longer fins, more color, etc. as "better"... so that's why people (since the beginning of fishkeeping) have selectively (line) bred for aesthetically pleasing characteristics and "sports" (like albinism, long fins, blue gene, etc.).

Other people view "authentic to nature" as "best".

Which is "better" a wild betta or a fancy one? A German ram that grows to 3" and has lots of blue or a wild one that's smaller with less blue? A wild peacock or a line bred one that's saturated with reds and blues?

There's no right answer... it's purely a personal opinion...

Matt

No, I'm not off topic. I feel that you don't really understand what You were asking. While fish can be bred for things like you describe, they do not improve the species. Generally it has the opposite effect. Any change we make by selective/line breeding IS taking a mutation and fixing it into the genetic make up of the fish. Whether it's for color, finage, size, or whatever. I don't know that any of them make a fish "better" but I do know that many make them worse.

I should also point out that when compaired to their wild relatives, many commecially bred fish look unspectacular. Wild fish ,or high quality offspring from wild stock, on the other hand are IMO as good as you get without altering what makes a Covict a Convict, a GT a GT , Oscar an Oscar, ect. While a Koi Angel may look pretty , it's markings are a bulls eye for predators and a warning sign for prey. Hardly an improvement , and not representitive of the species as a whole. Once we start monkeying around with things we rarely make them better.

 

[Roberto G]

Wild by faaaar!!!! Wild cichlids are just awesome! an it is 100% guaranteed that they are pure blood! But, I guess it is easier for you to find line breed cichlids, here at Costa Rica, finding wild CA'n cichlids is hard, but I guess it's because it is cheaper to visit a river and catch some parachromis or any other CA cichlid! So don't think I like to take fishes out of their enviroment, I'm just triying to get some nice looking ones!!