# Is there a way to safely tag my fish?



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

My breeding project is coming along quite rapidly. I have many different growout tanks filled with 3 - 4 inch Blue Gened Jack Dempsey's...about 5 blood lines in all. I do realize that they are central american cichlids of course, but this is going to be more of a general question.

The time has come now where they have begun to pair up with one another, brothers and sisters that is. I want to avoid this from happening, hence the 5 blood lines I have produced. Blue Gened Jack Dempsey's all have the standard Jack Dempsey look with a recessive blue gene. Since they all look the same, I am troubled as to how to pair them off...I don't want to lose track of who is who, and from which blood lines they came from.

So is there method of clipping fins, or attaching tags to them, so I can put 10 of each blood line together with 10 from another blood line and not get them all mixed up? Yesterday some of them were getting frisky with one another, and I know for a fact a brother/sister spawn is imminent if I don't make a move fast. I was going to start shuffling things around yesterday to avoid this, but I figured I would come here first and see what my options are.

So, is there a way to tag these fish or to otherwise determine which is which after they have been mixed up?

Thanks guys,

Cole~


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

I'm excited at your dedicated and organized approach to this EBJD repair attempt. Kudos...

I have to say it, just to get it off my chest, but I don't agree with you that inbreeding depression accounts for the EBJD problems (I truly believe it is the EBJD genes that cause the developmental problems) and I don't agree with maiming fish in this attempt to avoid the inbreeding bogeyman.

That said, I know that the fruits of your labor are more valuable if you continue doing exactly what you are doing.

You can buy fish tags. http://www.floytag.com/catalog.html just fingerling tags would be needed. You buy fingerling tags and the little gun to tag your fish...

There is a DIY way I heard of... split the top fin down right to the base. You pick a different spine per fish and record it. I've not done this, no idea if it heals or not... can't say I'd like the look of it!

Hope that helps.


----------



## TheeMon (May 11, 2004)

i would love to here more about this, i made a similar thread(in a diy i think)

would love to know if u used these, or found better


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

I wonder how much the environment impacts the health of the fish with the EB gene. Or is it the EB gene in general? Has anyone out crossed these fish with normal JDs and then recrossed their progeny in an attempt to get more fish with homozygous EB genes? Maybe there's an issue with a QTL and the related EB genes that out breeding could help to diminish.


----------



## MalawiLover (Sep 12, 2006)

The 1/8" x 3/8" and 1/8" x 7/16" oval tage from the companyTFG mentions would probably work really well. You could assign a single color to each blood line and give each individual a number, when you mix blood lines, use a third (perhaps specificly for each out cross possibility).


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> I wonder how much the environment impacts the health of the fish with the EB gene. Or is it the EB gene in general? Has anyone out crossed these fish with normal JDs and then recrossed their progeny in an attempt to get more fish with homozygous EB genes? Maybe there's an issue with a QTL and the related EB genes that out breeding could help to diminish.


Do a search on Cole's user name... there's been huge discussion about EBJD outcrossing and EBJD breeding.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

I see the EBJD has a similar mode of inheritance to the manx cat.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> I see the EBJD has a similar mode of inheritance to the manx cat.


The EB gene is not dominant though.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Number6 said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> > I see the EBJD has a similar mode of inheritance to the manx cat.
> ...


I gathered that, hence "similar".


----------



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

Number6 said:


> I'm excited at your dedicated and organized approach to this EBJD repair attempt. Kudos...


Thanks man. :thumb:



Number6 said:


> I have to say it, just to get it off my chest, but I don't agree with you that inbreeding depression accounts for the EBJD problems (I truly believe it is the EBJD genes that cause the developmental problems) and I don't agree with maiming fish in this attempt to avoid the inbreeding bogeyman.


I may be guilty of flip flopping on this issue on more than one occasion, but let me be clear that I *do* aggree with you 100%. All of the National Geographic programs I have watched throughout the years have showed me that it does not make much of a difference if fish chose to inbreed. Many species do it purposely and I am aware of it. But I see all of this in a different light. I wish to stay away from inbreeding because of the possibility of compounding bad genes, or at the very least giving me carbon copies of the same genes that I wanted to improve upon.

Take the forward protruding heads for example, and different colorations EBJDs can have. If I have one line of BGs created from an EBJD with a forward protruding head and really nice coloration, I can chose to breed the BGs to an unrelated line that may have a better looking head and perhaps not as nice of a coloration. I would hope to see in return some fish that have the head shape I want, some that have the coloration I want and some that hopefully will have good head shape and coloration(these are what I am after for step twto).

I can take BGs from EBJDs that had no illnesses and longer finnage and breed them to BGs that came from EBJDs that have short finnage but experienced mild illnesses. In return I hope to get some EBJDs with no illness, some with short finnage, and hopefully some with short finnage and no illnesses(these are what I am after for step two).

I would take the resulting winners from step one and breed them back to each other, or to each others progeny to hopefully get the line of fish I am after...A fish with nice head shape, great coloration, classic short finnage and stays healthy and robust.

But I have many variables to contend with over the long haul of this project. I have wild caught JDs to breed into this, I have female EBJDs that I have spawned that are being thrown into the mix, and I have some really excellant specimens that should be kept track of during all of this.

Anyway I really appreciate the heads up on those tags, and they do seem ideal. I must say I am a bit concerned over using a gun on a 3-4" fish. :lol: And pulling out the spines as you mentioned is deffinately way too invasive for me. I will likely run with the tags, but I am curious if there are any other DIY methods of identifying fish like this. I mean couldn't I use a real small peice of wire or some plastic or something sterilized with alcohol?

I am open to anyones suggestions on how one would do this, in a DIY manner. I can wait another week or so and then I must act before things get out of control.

Thanks for your interest guys.
:thumb: 
Cole~


----------



## MalawiLover (Sep 12, 2006)

cole said:


> I must say I am a bit concerned over using a gun on a 3-4" fish.


Its really only a "gun" in its shape. For the small taks, it is mor like a hand held hole puncher type of mechcanism. The tags are much like what clothing places use to put on price tags. The little plastic things with th"T"s at both ends. All the "gun" does is bend one T flat and inserit through a large bor needle type contraption and let it go back to its normal T shape on the otherside of (in your case) the dorsal fin.

They are often called Dennison guns (though that is actuall just one brand of tagging guns)


----------



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

Cool.

I got home today and got to thinking about it, and thought that it was most likely similar to a piercing gun or something...this is not so bad afterall.

So I guess I can use different colors for different blood lines and can place them in different locations of the fin depending on the sex. This is going to make my life much eaiser!

I have to say my only concern is them flashing and ripping one of these out...I am sure though that this is not a major problem and I can always re-tag when needed.

You guys have been very helpful. Thank you so much! :thumb:

Cole~


----------



## TheeMon (May 11, 2004)

this thread has exactly what i needed

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/view ... 6&start=15


----------



## marge618 (Mar 12, 2006)

cole said:


> Cool.
> 
> I got home today and got to thinking about it, and thought that it was most likely similar to a piercing gun or something...this is not so bad afterall.
> 
> ...


Just a thought. Though I have never seen it done. The fish and wildlife people tag fish all the time = then release and study fish populations, health, and 'where' the fish are found or caught later. If they are successful in tagging fish while they are young... then finding a Department of Natural Resources contact might be a great starting place. At least you would be talking to someone who has tagged MANY fish over MANY years and has data to prove it. (don't they have ID numbers for each and every fish they tag?)

Also 'Themon' has a similar post in this same or closely related topic 'How to Mark a fish' March 24 in this same forum.

Later,
Marge


----------



## ia246 (Oct 28, 2007)

cole said:


> Number6 said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say it, just to get it off my chest, but I don't agree with you that inbreeding depression accounts for the EBJD problems (I truly believe it is the EBJD genes that cause the developmental problems) and I don't agree with maiming fish in this attempt to avoid the inbreeding bogeyman.
> ...


It is categorically untrue to say that inbreeding is not a significant factor in EBJD problems. It is possible for fish to inbreed for a few generations before deleterious effects are seen; however if you believe the Hector Luzardo story of all EBJDs coming from one set of parents then the amount of inbreeding to produce commercially viable fish is extraordinary.

Inbreeding for just 4 generations in convict cichlids shows an increase in the rates of deformity (K. O. Winemiller, D. H. Taylor (1982) Inbreeding depression in the convict cichlid, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum (Baird and Girard) Journal of Fish Biology 21 (4) , 399â€"402). Thus it is easy to anticipate that the amount of inbreeding required to produce EBJDs decended not so long ago from a single pair of fish ought to have significant detrimental consequences for the health of EBJDs. In fact it seems sensible that this is the major culprit.

Tagging is an interesting idea though - let us know how you get on


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

with all due respect, that paper from 1982 was not a sound study and is not relevant.

"All inbred generation~ were derived from a single pair of convict cichlids (P I)' purchased
locally from a commercial fish dealer." The random pairing continued for each generation.

All that this confirms is that inbreeding depression exists (which no one needs confirmation of by the by). It is not relevant to an EBJD carrier x a EBJD carrier when outcrossing is occurring. 
The study itself commits so many errors in planning that it cannot add useful information and is certainly NOT enough to invalidate more modern studies showing the error of thinking these random pairing tests actually highlight problems associated with inbreeding.

With EBJD x EBJD crosses, it does not matter what steps have been taken to increase heterozygosity prior to re-producing EBJDs, the fish seem to have (on average) the same problems as any other EBJD.

Cole's breeding attempt is a very sound plan... by outcrossing to WC JDs, he is essentially searching for genes that would allow the EB colour to be expressed without the health problems associated with the current EBJD gene(s). He is not under the misconception that inbreeding can account for the EBJD developmental issues and that a simple outcross will solve anything...


----------



## ia246 (Oct 28, 2007)

The paper was cited purely for illustrative purposes.

The fact that all EBJDs are reputedly descended from a single pair of Jack dempseys owned by Hector Luzardo means that the amount of inbreeding in EBJDs is much greater than most, if not all, other species of aquarium fish.

I am confused that you seem to think that an EBJD x EBJD cross would yield an EBJD as virulent as any other EBJD. The only EBJDs that have been produced by EBJD x EBJD have either died after 10 days free swimming or else have been shown to be grossly deformed (in fact only one person in the world has produced any EBJDs from an EBJD x EBJD cross that have survived for over 1 month). Also, many breeders have anecdotely noted that a blue carrier x blue carrier cross has often produced more hardy EBJDs than an EBJD x blue carrier cross. Documentation of this can be found at the bluejax forum.

I am not sure that you have presented any evidence to support your claim that inbreeding being a major contributable factor is a 'misconception'. Also outcrossing to counteract inbreeding is not a simple matter at all and would require generations of work.

I agree that Coles approach to avoid inbreeding is sensible - if he manages to aquire some wild JDs at some point in the future then it can only be good for the EBJD genome.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

My error, the line "With EBJD x EBJD crosses" meant to say carriers x carriers. I mistyped there.

Since the EBJD is regularly reproduced first by outcrossing an EBJD to a completely unrelated JD, why are you still calling all EBJDs inbred? Outcrossing would reintroduce a large degree of heterozygosity with each outcross.

I will ask you to stop twisting words. I have little interest in games.
I take offense at your comment "I agree that Coles approach to avoid inbreeding is sensible".

I never implied this point, nor stated it...

I also never stated, "your claim that inbreeding being a major contributable factor is a 'misconception'."

My position, and it's one Cole and I have discussed before, is that at this time, inbreeding with repeated outcrossing to JDs, does not account for the behaviour of the EBJD gene.

The EBJD is one of the most interesting problems I've ever even heard of in cichlid genetics...

Carrier x Carrier = EBJD as expected, but that EBJD x EBJD = lethal is fascinating... certainly not easily explained by oversimplistic punnet squares... the sooner we admit to being at a loss to explain the EBJD phenomena, the better. 
:thumb:


----------



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

ia246 said:


> The only EBJDs that have been produced by EBJD x EBJD have either died after 10 days free swimming or else have been shown to be grossly deformed (in fact only one person in the world has produced any EBJDs from an EBJD x EBJD cross that have survived for over 1 month).


We need some fact checking before making such proposterous claims.

I just don't agree with this. There is just no way to say that all the facts are in about this type of cross. I do believe it has been done on many occassions by many different breeders and simply not documented. If the only person in the world you are reffering to is "DEMPSEYDAN," then I think you should retract the statement. First of all, he never supplied sufficent evidence of his claims, before leaving the site all together. Secondly, to think the only one in the world to do it was one that stumbled across bluejax, is just an assumption.

I have heard numerous accounts of people over the years acquiring EBJDs that were spawned by two EBJDs(although unverified). I have heard numerous accounts of people in South America and Asia breeding in this manner...yet no one has ever provided propper documentation of these spawns either...but does it mean its not so? You cant say one claim is a fact and the others are not....they are just claims after all. Furthermore, the "grossly deformed" specimens you are reffering to were either another claim by "DEMPSEYDAN" or were based off the pictures of someones supposed parrot x EBJD cross. Noone ever came forward and said that deformity was the result of their spawn of EBJD x EBJD. Such deformities have been noted in standard EBJD x BGJD spawns by several breeders.



ia246 said:


> I agree that Coles approach to avoid inbreeding is sensible - if he manages to aquire some wild JDs at some point in the future then it can only be good for the EBJD genome.


Thanks for that. I have had the wild caught female a couple months now, her tube is finally 3/4 extended and she is paired off with my big EBJD Bruce Lee.

I think this argument is taking place in the wrong thread. This was simply a thread for me to figure out great ways of identifying the thousands of fish I have swimming around. I am not concerned with the effects of inbreeding, although I would like to avoid it. Not avoid it because it may cause harm to the genes, but avoid it because I believe it negates my progress. I have one bloodline with one characteristic that I like, another bloodline with other characteristics that I like, and I simply want to make a special blend until I get something that is really nice. Inbreeding IMO just gives me more of the same. Again, I am not concerned with negative effects, I am simply interested in creating a positive effect.

:thumb: 
Cole~


----------



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

Number6 said:


> Carrier x Carrier = EBJD as expected, but that EBJD x EBJD = lethal is fascinating... certainly not easily explained by oversimplistic punnet squares... the sooner we admit to being at a loss to explain the EBJD phenomena, the better.
> :thumb:


I will admitt it right now, we are at a loss. No doubt about it in my mind. There are too many anamolies.

EBJD x EBJD = lethal....I dont think so. It's a simple matter of water hardness. Too many particles in the water at the time of the spawn and they have no chance. The fry are just much weaker, and more susceptable to parasitic infestations/fungus...but not lethal IMO. Just like female's aren't infertile. Not that you said they were, but females are fertile, males are fertile, and together they are not lethal IMO...we just need more people trying with better water conditions.

What confuses me, is that I do not believe we see 50/50 - EBJDs/BGJDs in an EBJD x BGJD Spawn. After speaking with several breeders, they have confirmed that they have never gotten these ratios. Arnold has even confrimed for me that only 1 of his pairs over the years has ever gotten close to 50% EBJDs...and this pair was purchased from Randy. All the pairs Arnold created from scratch proved to give him far less then 50%. Odd isn't it?

What is even more odd, is how several breeders have now told me that female EBJD x male BGJD produces far less EBJDs than a male EBJD x female BGJD spawn. Why is there a difference in the percentages from sex to sex using the same genetic lines? Something has gone cookooo.

Anyway its not something I have time to figure out now, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you Number 6, we are completely at a loss in explaining the EBJD phenomena, and I personally have gotten a headache trying. There appears to be no logical way to explain EBJD genetics.

Good Luck Trying. 
:thumb: 
Cole~


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

I didn't think it took 100% deaths to be called a lethal cross... I thought it just had to be an effective dead end to be called a lethal cross? I may be wrong there so I'll defer to you that the cross doesn't deserve the label since there are some survivor fry.

I'll be following your posts on your forum and on here for updates!


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Iâ€™ve spawned Blue x Blueâ€¦ it was a very young pair and the fry lived 10~12 days free swimming with zero care from me in a community settingâ€¦

My young Standard Dempsey pairs have about the same resultsâ€¦

I didnâ€™t choose to nurture their young as the pair were siblings and I have strong feelings about negative effects coming from excessive inbreeding, but thatâ€™s not the topic of our tangent to the original topicâ€¦ Sorry Coleâ€¦ lol

In my own tanks I do not start to believe patterns until I see them prove true at least three timesâ€¦ and then I maintain reasonable doubt awaiting further evidenceâ€¦ To my knowledge we have not had one competent breeder spawn Blue x Blue and share thorough documentationâ€¦ So I have to agree with Cole that this subject has not been offered enough exploration to come to a conclusionâ€¦

Back to the Threads Topicâ€¦

I â€œTag my fishâ€


----------



## ia246 (Oct 28, 2007)

I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems encountered with ebjds is due to inbreeding too - I may start a thread about it elsewhere to explain my thoughts and the genetics behind them.

Lucky getting your Trimacs to eat them - my Jags just dont bother with them at all!!!

Any pictures of your tagging?


----------



## TheeMon (May 11, 2004)

man, this thread has got derailed badly...


----------



## sixty six (Jul 11, 2006)

Not to jump in but after reading this thread I think there is some scence jargon to for you guys to look up, might help explain some of the EBJD observations: 
heterozygote superiority/advantage
antogonistic pleiotropy
segregation distortion

Also
Good tagging for small fish
http://www.nmt.us/products/vie/detection/detection.htm


----------



## cole (Oct 25, 2006)

I will do some research. Thanks for that.

Cole~


----------

