# Breeding Question



## Eb0la11 (Feb 29, 2008)

Will fish ever breed with their offspring if you keep them together long enough for them to mature to that stage of life?


----------



## MalawiLover (Sep 12, 2006)

Yep. They do it in the wild too, though with the larger populations and much more geographic space they have, it happens less.

It is also often done on purpose to improve certain traits. Then it called line breeding.


----------



## Eb0la11 (Feb 29, 2008)

So is this bad to do as a hobbyist? I suppose offspring of the same parents will breed with each other too then? Is any of that bad? I suppose its not as good as two distinct fish breeding but is it bad to have fish breed like this?


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

It doesn't have the same immediate impact on fish that it has on mammals. In fact, there are some populations of lake tang cichlids that even in the wild inbred continuely. Siblings breeding is worse than a child/parent cross. Deffinately not a great idea, but it is very common. For instance, most rare cichlids in the hobby orginally came from brother/sister crosses when first imported. If you can avoid it though, I would. It's more responsible and would create stronger lines.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

dwarfpike said:


> Siblings breeding is worse than a child/parent cross.


I don't think I'd say that... I think you'd find that generally speaking, back-crosses are worse than sibling to sibling pairing.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Sibling crosses have near identical dna sequences, where parent/child crosses only have half of those sequences in common. At least that's what they taught us in genetics class.

Plus line breeders to fix a trait tend to backcross rather than use siblings with the same traits presumably for the same reasons.

Though I specialized in psychology, not genetics so that could all be circumstancial evidence.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Inbreeding is not common in most species of Cichlids in the wildâ€¦

Iâ€™ve found that when given other options, my CA Cichlids will avoid inbreedingâ€¦

There are MANY deformities and other health compromises that are attributed to inbreedingâ€¦

Although responsible line breeding does include inbreeding, letting random quality fish inbreeding is NOT line breeding.

But all that being saidâ€¦ if youâ€™re simply keeping fish as a hobby and not distributing the offspringâ€¦ then there is nothing wrong with allowing your fish to inbreed. But I would feel completely cheated if someone simply bought two sibling fish and sold their offspring to me at full price as quality fish.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

dwarfpike said:


> Sibling crosses have near identical dna sequences,


 I don't see how this is the case...



dwarfpike said:


> Plus line breeders to fix a trait tend to backcross rather than use siblings with the same traits presumably for the same reasons.


 I always understood that back-crosses moved a breeding group towards homozygosity faster than sibling to sibling pairing.

Do you have a text book or anything I could read this in? or is this from memory? I'll have to hit the books again as I don't want to go from my memory or be unaware of recent info that shows sibling to sibling crosses have higher inbreeding depression.

Toby... every species of cichlid avoids inbreeding and outcrossing to a level appropriate to the species. I would not even go so far as to say that the species that avoid inbreeding outnumber the species that seem more cavalier about it. I do agree that for the large CA species, inbreeding seems to be avoided and I would prefer a less inbred group to work with.

In contrast to this, many of the dwarf cichlids of SA and many of the Rift lake cichlids seem to be totally unaffected suggesting that inbreeding has historically been more common in those populations.

It's certainly a complicated topic!!! :thumb:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Let us not forget recent studies into the Pelvicachromis taeniatus sp. which have revealed that many times the siblings choose to pair and spawn with a sibling/parent over that of another genetic lineage.

I've given my P taeniatus a choice between their own siblings and those of another pair, and *every* time the siblings have ended up bonding and spawning, I've had multiple batches through this process, all as healthy as the first batch from unrelated parents. I've seen two deformed fry, that's it - both were deformities around the mouth area, which I suspect is more likely to be environmentally influenced, rather than genetic, especially considering the rarity. I've had fry from the fry and etc. So it's not just one generation I've experienced.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n19187200 - not the science paper I read some time ago, but relevant non-the-less.

Whether inbred or outcrossed surely it really doesn't make a difference unless there is already a problematic gene somewhere in that mix, obviously siblings will more likely both carry such a gene and therefore increase the likeliness of it surfacing, or at least further infusing it into the gene pool.

To me it comes down to being - if two related fish have proven to have healthy genetic background after multiple spawns with unrelated partners, what is to say that there will suddenly be mutations/horror stories if they were to mate with that sibling. Perhaps that is down to my cloudy understanding of genetics (I don't claim to be knowledgeable, just very interested).

Surely, mutations and defects come from bad genes, whether related or not, a bad gene is a bad gene and it will surface whatever the circumstance.

I'm not saying that this applies to all fish either, but that we shouldn't see it so "black and white" as there are surely other factors that we are not yet aware of/yet to fully understand.



> Although responsible line breeding does include inbreeding, letting random quality fish inbreeding is NOT line breeding.


Here here, the whole idea is to know the genetic quality behind those fish you breed, otherwise one is simply introducing unknown and untested genetics into what was a known and healthy gene pool - as damaging as any amount of inbreeding IMO.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

*Toby* - I wasn't using the example as a reason to do it, merely to show it doesn't have the same immediate genetic defects appearing as it does in mammals. I deffinately don't recommend it. I maybe one of the only people that buy female convicts at petsmart and the males from the lfs to make sure they don't even come from the same wholesalers.

*Number6* - alas, it is from memory of ten years ago or so. I have one of those odd memories that just saves random things and forgets usefull things like names or phone numbers. :lol: I do remember clearly a local discus breeder explaining that as the reason for backcrossing though. That deffinately doesn't mean he was right though. Edit: A quick web search comes up with parent/child crosses and sibling crosses have the same inbreeding coefficient, .5. The exception are identical twins, which have the highest inbreeding coefficient of 1.0.

*Blair* - psssh ... you just threatened them with restricted feeding of hagis and blood sausage so they'd breed to their siblings. I think even humans would look at their siblings if you threatened to only feed them that!!


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:lol:

I wanted to add a couple of other docs the OP may find interesting:

http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/pub/6wcgalp/6wcPante.pdf

The paper I mentioned earlier:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... b0dc854229


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

So I think we answered the OPâ€™s questionâ€¦ there is no harm done to the parents who inbreedâ€¦ the impact on the offspring varies on the species, but random quality inbreeding should really be avoidedâ€¦

What species are you breeding/inbreeding? Regardless, if you arenâ€™t distributing the offspring you have nothing to worry about (since you said â€œas a hobbyistâ€


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:thumb:

Great post as a whole, just quoting this bit to add to it, because I wholeheartedly agree and don't want to come accross as suggesting that because it appears in one sp it is automatically a-ok:



Toby_H said:


> Iâ€™ve read the recent findings about Pelvicachromis taeniatus sp. and the way I read the articles this is a new or rare finding. Meaning, based on previous knowledge held by the scientists they expected the fish to avoid inbreeding. So although this is solid evidence that inbreeding does take place in the wild in some speciesâ€¦ it still holds true it is the exception and not the ruleâ€¦


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 0e4a76c002



> This is not to say every case of inbreeding is irresponsibleâ€¦ but it suggests to me that inbreeding should be avoided except where logically factored into a breeding project as a productive stepâ€¦ unless the offspring are not going to be distributed...


About says it all..... :thumb:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Toby_H said:


> This is not to say every case of inbreeding is irresponsibleâ€¦ but it suggests to me that inbreeding should be avoided except where logically factored into a breeding project as a productive stepâ€¦ unless the offspring are not going to be distributed...


 I was taught this in High school, then again at University in genetics and I found it in just about every book, paper, article and mouth of every skilled breeder... 
So I had Aulonacara Jacobfreigi and had a unique money making strategy... I'd sell the breeding adults and keep a couple batches of fry to grow out... good cash this way... breeding colonies sell for a good chunk of change!

I grew out fry, kept the 6 best and continued for many generations... round about the 6th (the generation when the books and experts said I have to outcross I only kept my best looking young male and went out and bought a couple of unrelated females.

The fry from both gals were dull, unimpressive, didn't even look like the photos of jacobfreigi out of the book... even had a couple fry with strange looking mouths...

What the @#^^& happened? I'd wrecked my bloodline... I then began researching the heck out of the inbreeding bogeyman to see if the tales held up to reality and guess what.... it doesn't. Recent studies repeatedly show that inbreeding in the wild does not seem to have the same predicted and witnessed results as it does in captive breeding programs.

Even in my own lifetime, I stocked a pond with around 24 sunfish when I was a kid... to this day (and this is a man made pond on private property so I doubt significant outcrossing) that pond spits out perfect sunfish by the thousands... all from 24 fish.

I've even seen these results in apistogramma that were in my control over multiple generations...

For me, I've realized that the truth is probably not understood yet, but we do know that it's at least a heck of a lot more complex than inbreeding=bad, outcrossing=good. For me, I have settled on the practice of allowing inbreeding should the fish select related mates out of a group of mixed and I've seen deformities drop to zero... if I do see a deformity, I tend to scrap fry, parents, etc and start again with other fish, sometimes even related ones from my own originals. Once in a blue moon I meet folks who have fish from person x who got them from person Y who got them from me and still no deformities. One local breeder can track his Julies to about the 12th generation in the Toronto Canada area... still perfect looking fish!

Now *that* is a great breeder... :thumb: [/u]


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

So if one wanted to outcross "safely" it would be wise to first try the new genetics before introducing them to the inbred, but _known_ genetic pool, then we run into the issue of time and space to do this, something that I guess a lot of people wont be willing to delve into.

Brings us back to my earlier comment about outcrossing being as potentially damaging as inbreeding, but again I don't know too much about it, so maybe my naivety brings some clarity :lol:. Maybe not.

I would be curious to know if the majority of those who regularly outcross their line bred specimens are working with unrelated but known (ie tried and tested) genetics, or whether they simply bring in a "quality" specimen without having first tested it....

Interesting, certainly very interesting.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

In the article Blair linked us to regarding Rainbow Trout Inbreedingâ€¦ They found that there was a jump in the amount of inbreeding after the second generation of inbred fish. This is reflected by the chart on the top of page three and described in more detail in the same section of the article.

So this suggests, at least with Rainbow Trout, that once a fish starts on a path of inbreeding it will naturally become more inclined toward choosing a related mateâ€¦ Is that how you read that part?

If so, this may support #6â€™s experience with the Aulonacara Jacobfreigiâ€¦

But on the contrary to your experience with Apistosâ€¦ Iâ€™ve seen a few breeding projects abuse inbreeding in them which resulted in heavy deformities (usually mouth related) causing the line to be scraped.

On the topic of inbreeding Iâ€™ve become convinced that we need to look at SA/CA Cichlids and African Cichlids on completely different scalesâ€¦

PS â€" As I mention a difference in experience such as with the Apistosâ€¦ Iâ€™m by no means suggesting one is right and the other is wrongâ€¦ Iâ€™m simply pointing out a difference in experience  All in a very friendly moodâ€¦


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

blairo1 said:


> So if one wanted to outcross "safely" it would be wise to first try the new genetics before introducing them to the inbred, but _known_ genetic pool, then we run into the issue of time and space to do this, something that I guess a lot of people wont be willing to delve into.


 That would be the ideal, but no one can do it!



blairo1 said:


> Brings us back to my earlier comment about outcrossing being as potentially damaging as inbreeding,


 Inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression are both very very real and again, each species' balance point seems to be rather unique to the species (or perhaps even lower than species level? )



blairo1 said:


> or whether they simply bring in a "quality" specimen without having first tested it....


 IME it's this one... they just outcross rather at random. Thing is, outcrossing seems to be ok because of the masking effect of a good gene over most negatives. In theory, if we could outcross forever and always return to the wild for new blood, then you might never really find to much wrong if you outcross 100% of the time. The problem is, that's not really all that possible especially if the species is rare, endangered or extinct.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

I agree with treating new world differantly as opposed to african, or even more so rift lake species. Many rift lake species or color forms are limited to a tiny natural area compared to new world or even west african riverine species. You would think given the smaller area that through evoloution that something happened to buffer the natural inbreeding that would happen in such a confined space.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

dwarfpike said:


> I agree with treating new world differantly as opposed to african, or even more so rift lake species.


I still say there is danger in lumping a large group of fishes into one bucket...

e.g. inbreeding in shell dwellers seems to result in a very high % increase in deformities... my hunch is the frequency of wild hybrids found among these fish.

Even with Apistogramma, I'd say that my experience where inbreeding out of a tank full of apistos had no effect vs Toby_H's experiences watching apistos inbred to a negative result shows that it may not be correct to try and find any "golden rules" yet.

I honestly don't think we know enough yet...


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

> . You would think given the smaller area that through evoloution that something happened to buffer the natural inbreeding that would happen in such a confined space.


Evolution does have it's own answer - natural selection. Favouring the successful genetic lines, whether inbred or not, resolving the recessive/mutated/defective genetic issues involved in _either_ process, probably why we are still to learn so much about the effects of inbreeding in such populations, which I believe may be more deeply seated than we potentially expect.

I also tend to agree that different sp. from either similar or differing locations should not be grouped together, the environmental factors unarguably affect the course of evolutions answer (natural selection) considering the incredibly diverse conditions in the same river, let alone in different lakes. Therefore I think the specific individual sp. should be regarded in their own particular circumstance.

As a (potentially poor) example, one fish such as the P. taeniatus will have a completely different set of predators, so evolution will adapt them as best as possible, potentially resulting in a limitation of their spread and ergo increasing the likelihood of inbreeding. Whereas in the same river a larger fish will experience different/less predation, therefore allowing it a free roam of a larger area without such great risk, surely then, in this instance the environmental factors will drive evolutions natural selection in two different directions, to an extent; inbreeding in one populous and outbreeding predominantly in another. I mention only one environmental influence, in the form of predation, but I imagine that when applying further factors we may see a trend to suggest why inbreeding may occur in one sp yet seem less prolific in another.

One could go on to speculate about how size alone may influence such developments in breeding decisions - again small dwarf fish will be more abundant in a smaller area, simply on account of the ecosystems ability to sustain such numbers, increasing the likelihood of "bumping" into kin. Whereas larger fish require more food etc than the ecosystem may provide in such a small area, naturally causing them to distribute further apart once mature, decreasing the likelihood of running into and mating with kin etc, how does one even begin to measure such factors considering the scale.

Those are just my thoughts and speculation on it anyway.


----------



## Eb0la11 (Feb 29, 2008)

Toby_H said:


> So I think we answered the OPâ€™s questionâ€¦ there is no harm done to the parents who inbreedâ€¦ the impact on the offspring varies on the species, but random quality inbreeding should really be avoidedâ€¦
> 
> What species are you breeding/inbreeding? Regardless, if you arenâ€™t distributing the offspring you have nothing to worry about (since you said â€œas a hobbyistâ€


----------



## Eb0la11 (Feb 29, 2008)

Also to note. The same two livingstoniis actually just mated for me again today for the second time. They are basically doing it as I type this. Circling around and she's laying eggs and hes fertilizing.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

In my honest opinion, the two with crooked spines should be culled, as well as any that take a little while to grow, have spines that look less straight as an arrow, etc.

Out of a batch of 55 fry, I'd be keeping only the top 25 performers. I tend to take my fry through as many as three lookovers and cull anything that I even pause on for a moment. Do this, and ignore inbreeding/outbreeding and this hobby would be better off by a zillion miles.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Number6 said:


> I honestly don't think we know enough yet...


I have to agree with this point as the final conclusionâ€¦ but in the mean time I feel conversations such as this are extremely important to give us a collection of experiences to build off of in the mean timeâ€¦

I feel if someone wants to be a breeder, they need to take steps to offer strong fishâ€¦

But for a hobbyist who wants to keep fish and has a two fish who chose to mateâ€¦ No harm has been done. As #6 described strict culling processes should be applied to all broods bred by hobbyists or breedersâ€¦ be they related or unrelatedâ€¦

I feel to continue inbreeding within a line without extensive research for the particular species you are working with should be seen as irresponsible and should not be supportedâ€¦

So, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with selling your stronger offspring (the ones that passed the culling process)â€¦ but if someone else buys a few and forms a pairâ€¦ then sells the offspring back to a shopâ€¦ then someone else buys some of them to form a pairâ€¦ you see where Iâ€™m going with thisâ€¦ And itâ€™s out of your controlâ€¦

Due to the potential of further inbreeding randomly quality fishâ€¦ I personally do not sell/trade inbred fish. But this is a personal choice I make not a moral value I press (at least to hobbyists)â€¦

Congratts on your second spawnâ€¦


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Toby_H said:


> Due to the potential of further inbreeding randomly quality fishâ€¦ I personally do not sell/trade inbred fish. But this is a personal choice I make not a moral value I press (at least to hobbyists)â€¦


The only part I will pick on you about is that you haven't suggested a multi-generation alternative.

How does one outcross? How does one find an unrelated specimen and how often do you outcross?

How does one avoid untested gene combinations?

How does one avoid intra-species hybridization?

How does one track pedigree to ensure that a half sibling isn't actually being bought even though we order said fish from distant location?

Sure, with Jack Dempsey's you can always return to the wild but what about with say... Zebra Plecos?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

> The only part I will pick on you about is that you haven't suggested a multi-generation alternative.
> 
> How does one outcross?


 By using top quality unrelated fish that (hopefully) have the characteristics that you are attempting to bring out in your lineâ€¦



> How does one find an unrelated specimen and how often do you outcross?


 As we discussed here, how often will vary from species to species. Buying fish from different stores which use different suppliers is how I seek out â€œunrelatedâ€


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

> Buying fish from different stores which use different suppliers is how I seek out â€œunrelatedâ€


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

blairo1 said:


> naturally one can fairly safely assume that ordering a Bolivian Ram male from a Czech breeder and a female from a Brazilian importer will result in unrelated pairs,


in my experience such an action results in the highest % of deformities and other problems. 
Random breeding has never worked out well for any bloodline I've been able to watch over time... 
Any inbreeding following such a huge outcross has been disastrous...

Is Blairo's story a typical style of outcrossing? Random pairs?

Or do folks at least know that they should be ordering 6 fish from A and 6 fish from B?


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

> Or do folks at least know that they should be ordering 6 fish from A and 6 fish from B?


Even if they do, if the 6 fish from breeder A are related and the 6 fish from breeder B are related, what is to stop them pairing off (by their own decisions) with kin. Not only that but again going back to how are we to know that A didn't start their breeding program from the same imported/raised stock as B - they all have to get them from what eventually comes down to one, shared source (a set breeding group that was first extracted for such purposes).

Of course there _are_ responsible breeding programs supplying the trade with fresh bloodlines, but I stand by them being the minority in the big picture, so even if one does concern themselves with outcrossing to fresh bloodlines, it is not necessarily an easy thing to do unless you truly know the background of both fish and breeder.... Which I'm sure we can all vouch is not as straightforward as it sounds.

Just thoughts, I don't imagine I'm right by any shot but these are things that I do ponder on. I also believe random pairings are more likely than two separate groups then allowed to pair off to their own accord - most won't invest the money or tank space for such actions, favouring to keep costs down and buying the "nicest" male from A and nicest female from B, or what I expect is even more common, buying both from A - which is why I distribute my fry at two locations, males at one LFS (which sells the sp. from a different importer than I use) and females at another (again that offers males from a different importer) in the hope that I myself don't further the inbreeding potential. I also ensure that the LFS's inform people that these are x from x and the relatives are at shop B, so that those who do actually try to get different bloodlines are not mistakenly buying my males and females whilst thinking they are unrelated.

Stand in a fish store for a while, the majority (in this country at least) who come in for Cichlids to breed, only buy pairs IME.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

blairo1 said:


> Stand in a fish store for a while, the majority (in this country at least) who come in for Cichlids to breed, only buy pairs IME.


and then blame inbreeding for deformities! :lol:

Random breeding is the nemesis I worry most about... and yet it is, as you say, the common practice. crazy...


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Pretty much huh.

The problem is that it's far easier to go out, get a pair of any old fish, start breeding and distributing them, than it is to do it properly and go to the lengths, time, cost and effort involved in ensuring you give your gene pool (and future generations) the best possible opportunity.

Quite upsetting really, considering it is a responsibility that we should have taken upon ourselves from the beginning, but is something that has become so lackadaisical that few are even aware of the potential issues involved in _either_ inbreeding or outcrossing, that it is seemingly common place for fishstores to sell "pairs" which originate from the same supplier, to the extent that the average hobbyist sees it as "the done thing" and therefore has no reason to see why their (unknown to them) inbred fry should not be sold off to the same store, who sell them again, etc, where does the responsibility lie? Should the LFS be making available undoubtedly related males and females? How many are even aware that the "pairs" they sell from their same importer are potentially related? As a potential breeder, one should seriously think about learning at least a little more about genetics before embarking on such actions, not to mention those with questionable ethics. The individuals buying the fish, is it not too their responsibility to do the research which will ultimately lead them to similar conclusions that we have shared here?

It's happening on every level, every day, all over the world.

Part of the reason why I believe inbreeding is far deeper ingrained than we might imagine and why I speculate it may not be as damaging as we once thought ( :? )- if it is so particularly damaging would we not expect to see more issues by this point.... Or perhaps we are yet to really see those issues arise over the next few generations, not only that but how do you even measure such occurrences, considering how widespread it may be, the result of which will dilute the focus of such problems with a plethora of other issues that may mask the base cause (ie are these problems from poor general breeding practice - be it conditions, culling, feed, hormone use, meds etc, or are they problems occurring due to random outcrossing, or high inbreeding depressions.)

Natural selection has thus far taken care of in and out crossing depressions (as far as I am concerned), but in our tanks we isolate these creatures from many of the selective forces that may have otherwise wiped out that defective/weak genetic line, allowing them not only to survive, but to spread those genetics far and wide (assuming one does not cull responsibly), there will undoubtedly be repercussions of this, but to what extent, and can they really be shown to be worse than that of constant random outcrossing?


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Around here, most seem to do the 'buy a group' deal, 6 still seems to be the classic number. Unfortunately of course, if you see a rare group of cichlids in the store no one else has, you are going to jump on them and most likely, given the similiar sizes, they are going to be brothers and sisters. Several species in the aquarium trade started with only one pair of parents or a small group of fish (ex_Cichlasoma bocourti_ for instance started with only 5 fish returned from one collecting trip).

Easily sexed, common fish like convicts I tend to by all the males from one place, all the females from a differant that I know uses a differant wholesaler with the intent they are not related. Blair brought up a good point, most fish from asian or florida fish farms are most likely inbred as well ... the common practice is to import the fish and throw them all into the pond. There is no controlled breeding, so there is bound to be inbreeding there.


----------



## Dewdrop (Nov 20, 2007)

It's over my head but just to be funny I gotta tell ya that I think Blairo's fish have something there by picking their mates from siblings. As they say here in West Virginia "the closer the kin, the nicer the skin"  :lol: . Don't worry, I'm an only child


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:lol:


----------

