# N.birchardi stop growing?



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

hi folks,

i have a N.birchardi, its grows to 2.5inch???and stops growing!

it eat alot and was aggressive fish. nobody dares to bully near its cave... it is also fat.

why can't grow to 4inches? :-?

thanks


----------



## Frigid Blue (Feb 12, 2011)

What is the size of the tank?


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

hello sir

4x1.5x1.5 67gallon

it just grows so slow and stop growing!!!  
it can't even hit 3inch...sad



Frigid Blue said:


> What is the size of the tank?


----------



## Ptyochromis (Mar 23, 2012)

how old is the fish?


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

hello sir,

i am not sure of the age... :lol:

but i am sure it is adult fish, see below

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/bichardi.jpg/



Ptyochromis said:


> how old is the fish?


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I guess it is one of the farm bred ones (very inbred) and it is being kept with Mbuna. You can not expect inbred fish in with nippy tankmates to grow to the wild type size of 4" or for Wild type to stick to only 4 inches once given auqarium foods and good conditions. You can expect those to get way beyond 4". :wink:

With your Mbuna (small ones) I think you should be happy its staying so small. If it were a good not inbred N.brichardi it would be caursing major problems by now. :thumb:


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

hello sir

thanks for advice.

ya maybe it was a farm in-breed for many generations and was stunned.
or is it a female? i heard females only grows to 3 inches?

thanks



24Tropheus said:


> I guess it is one of the farm bred ones (very inbred) and it is being kept with Mbuna. You can not expect inbred fish in with nippy tankmates to grow to the wild type size of 4" or for Wild type to stick to only 4 inches once given auqarium foods and good conditions. You can expect those to get way beyond 4". :wink:
> 
> With your Mbuna (small ones) I think you should be happy its staying so small. If it were a good not inbred N.brichardi it would be caursing major problems by now. :thumb:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Both males and females can achieve a size of 4 inches. 
Some individuals may reach 6" including tail fillements.
Sadly my own now only get to 31/2", groups got to 5" in the 1980s.
Real need for some good old wild blood to reimprove our tank stock. :thumb:
This is not always easy as they seem to prefer to breed with close family and kill new stock.

Who knows folk may prefer the small ones though. Less likely to become a pain in thier tanks?


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

wow! 6 inches! i read that only "fuwle" jumbo bichardi get to 6 inches

i'll be happy if mine can get to 4 inches...

thanks for advice cheers! :thumb:



24Tropheus said:


> Both males and females can achieve a size of 4 inches.
> Some individuals may reach 6" including tail fillements.
> Sadly my own now only get to 31/2", groups got to 5" in the 1980s.
> Real need for some good old wild blood to reimprove our tank stock. :thumb:
> ...


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Dunno not seen any proof Neolamprologus brichardi (Fulwe Rocks) get much bigger than any others myself.
Care to share where you read this?
Yep heard em called Jumbo but thought that was just a selling thing.  

All the best James


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

hi folks

anybody has a big N.Bichardi to show?
i am really curious if they really grows to 4"-6"
mine just stopped at 2.5 inches :zz:

thanks



24Tropheus said:


> Dunno not seen any proof Neolamprologus brichardi (Fulwe Rocks) get much bigger than any others myself.
> Care to share where you read this?
> Yep heard em called Jumbo but thought that was just a selling thing.
> 
> All the best James


----------



## Ptyochromis (Mar 23, 2012)

What do you feed them?


----------



## Multies (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm not sure if i can be of any help but my pulchers were a little over 4inches when I had them

(sorry for the crappy pic)


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

One of my N.bichardi at least 31/2" originally (Magara) I was told a few generations back but never measure my fish. Nothing more than regular flake and some pellets when I can be bothered.










Sadly each generation seems to be smaller than the last.


----------



## Ptyochromis (Mar 23, 2012)

24Tropheus said:


> Sadly each generation seems to be smaller than the last.


Could be the result of inbreeding


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Ptyochromis said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly each generation seems to be smaller than the last.
> ...


Pretty sure it is but getting em to outbreed is a real problem. They like to kill anything unrelated I try.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

inbreeding does not create 100% smaller and smaller fish. Not possible...

IF (and this is a great big unknown if) there are traits accidentally being locked in by inbreeding that leads to smaller and smaller fish then what you would see is some bloodlines shrinking but not all. There is a crazy "stretch" theory that is a improbable where inbreeding could be a contributory factor but it's so improbable I can't even bring myself to mention it.

ALSO, If the entire captive population of the British is producing smaller and smaller specimens then no amount of outcrossing will mask whatever super-shrinking gene you guys have managed to pollute your gene pool with. For the gene to become so dominant in the British Isles it must have been a very dominant gene. The chances of finding an even MORE dominant gene and using that to correct the problem is near impossible. It is certainly practically impossible.

Keep looking for your "answer" for your shrinking fish... it isn't the inbreeding bogeyman.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> They like to kill anything unrelated I try.


Why do you think this is? 
You are familiar with how this species selects mates in the wild right? I can't say I am happy to see someone suggesting that they introduce 'outbreeding depression' into a bloodline.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Number6 said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > They like to kill anything unrelated I try.
> ...


I think but am not sure its just far to many alleles pairing up. Just the reg stuff that happens if you inbred for generations with clear defects being selected out. (Like Golden hamster etc) But in a tank population I may have inadvertantly selected (or allowed selection for) for those that breed early and do not grow big.
Whats outbreeding depression?
And how does this species select its mates in the wild?
I guess its from the surounding group of thousands. Far far larger and diverse than my tank population. But I for sure dunno.

I do not think all those in the UK are regularly bred together so are not of interest?
Unless you think I could just get some of these to breed with mine to help?
Though all I see in shops etc do not seem anything like as big as they used to be. 

Would love to hear of a solution other than dumping the lot and starting again with a larger group of WC.

Saying that those I pass these on to seem happy with them. Just I think they are not as good as they could be.

All the best James


----------



## Ptyochromis (Mar 23, 2012)

Troph, have you tried removing all the fish, re-arranging(complete re-do so nothing is the same[/url]) the tank and then adding the old fish+new ones back in at the same time?

Also article on inbreeding depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression
Article on Insular dwarfism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism
And of course Foster's rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster's_rule

Edit: you might also want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift I really don't feel like explaining all this lol


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*Ptyochromis*
I am very familiar with each of those topics and they are not relevant. Inbreeding depression is very real, and widely misunderstood. Homozygosity is not "bad" just as heterozygosity isnt "good". 
We all know Mendellian genetics is oversimplified and doesnt tell us the real story, but even using an overly simplistic mendellian explanation works in this case... Take any two fish with an allele for normal size and one for smaller size. Cross them.... For every fish you get that is homozygous for small and small, what are your other three? As Troph says, for this to have kicked in, everyone must be subconsciously selecting for the small/small phenotype. Since we know that folks love jumbo fish, are we really suggesting that all of Great Britain veered from traditional desires and went for small/smalls?

What we are definately not seeing is any sort of mutli-generational selective pressure for small/ small.

A much more likely theory if the birchardis are slowly turning up smaller and smaller is that they are acheiving normal growth but something common about how aquarists keep them in captivity in England is triggering the expression of some genetic sequence present in this fish causing them to devote less energy to growth. Birchardi seem fine over here in my treks so this bit of evidence fits such a theory. I wouldnt want to toss that out to the internet as more than just speculation so i would declare it as such...


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Whats outbreeding depression?
> And how does this species select its mates in the wild?
> I guess its from the surounding group of thousands. Far far larger and diverse than my tank population. s


Outbreeding depression is both the opposite of and directly related to inbreeding depression. It is the genetic inferiority that can come from outcrossing. Outcrossing followed by inbreeding has been shown in studies to have the largest number of problems of any other mating strategy.

It is from the surrounding group... With more genetic diversity per individual than an individual in your tank? What makes you guess that? Or did you mean greater overall genetic diversity than captive populations? If the latter, I doubt it... The captive population likely has huge gentic diversity courtesy of all the constant hybridization that hobbyists do.

Ptyouchromis mentions genetic drift.... Now, we know that is happening very quickly courtesy of outbreeding depression and inbreeding. You know what wouldnt surprise me in the least? If the "small" birchardi are a hybrid where the new genetic code has created a more rapidly breeding but smaller individual. That will be my second and last speculation.... It would take quite a bit to prove that one out and i lack that sort of equipment as i am sure you do too. :lol:


----------



## ahud (Aug 22, 2009)

I love your post Number6. opcorn:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I think Ptyochromis references are more than relevant. As I do not think we do not have a single interbreeding population in the UK. Instead each breeding group becomes a "population" on its own for many generations I think.

I dunno maybe I could find someone who has got the opposite and has ever increasing individual size but it would have to be the same variant or I would be making a variant cross. I realy dought it though as that I think would take hard selection on thier part not just removing poor individuals and alowing them to become "tank addapted"

Well I guess a variant cross is possible in my fish (followed by poor selection) but only if I was missled when I first got them.

I still do not undersand this outbreeding depression. Though. :-?

I understand that different genes from different populations may not work well together but I do not understand why these would be in the original variant or population.

All the best James


----------



## Ptyochromis (Mar 23, 2012)

By keeping fish in a tank you are isolating a population in a similar way that they are isolated on an island. I don't know of any wild free fish in lake Tanganyika that are feeding on brine shrimp or NLS flake. These changes in diet and also the amount of space available to the animal, all be it very drastic; is much like the changes an isolated population would experience on an island.
We know that genetic drift plays a much larger role. "...deleterious alleles can become more frequent and 'fixed' in a population due to chance."

Lets assume that the original birchardi are F0. In the wild, fish that carry the allele for small size are eaten. In the aquarium they are not, therefore they may pass on the allele. This can happen in only a few generations.

We also have no idea how the chemicals we add to the water do to the fish. If they cause damage to the DNA of the fish during meiosis, producing a mutation.

There are many more reasons for why the fish are small than just hybridization.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*Ptyochromis*
An island and a single or series of aquariums have nothing in common. On an island, mates choose each other out of the population at large and multigenerational success at life creates a subtle but powerful force for evolution.

In a tank, an aquarist picks some small number of fish at random ( or close to random) and basically linebreeds.

Not remotely the same.

I am getting curious about your personal experiences in this subject...

I have only met two aquarists, and I make a third, who has bred cichlids for a large number of generations while still staying within the single bloodline. I went to 6 and then promptly screwed everything up by outcrossing as i had been educated that you can only inbreed for around 5 or 6 generations before you must outcross. The other aquarists hit a good 15 generations. 
How many generations have you or Tropheus had with any Tanganyikan?

Or are you working from theoreticals only?

As for your sugestion that small birchardi are eaten but large are not, that is not what is found in studies of wild populations. It is usually found that the fish are the size they are because any larger or smaller and they are not as competitive. Larger fish are often targeted by predators, not smaller ones... Sneaker males, for example, is a common trick in many fish so your theory seems implausible.

As for small fish in captivity being able to pass on genes, that is true. As are larger fish... So where did the offspring from the larger fish go?

As for chemicals damaging genetic code, any evidence of that? Sounds more like science fiction than anything else...

And for the record.... I am not saying the fish are smaller from hybridization.... I am saying that as far as theories go, inbreeding accounting for a shrinking population is nigh impossible, whereas a more plausible speculation would be the old hybrid vigor theory.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> I still do not undersand this outbreeding depression. Though. :-?
> 
> I understand that different genes from different populations may not work well together but I do not understand why these would be in the original variant or population.
> 
> All the best James


As always, I enjoy our conversation James... You dont "give in" at all, but you are open to listening.

In any given population of animals, there will be some amount of gene flow with neighboring populations. If it is a rare event, the population will have more stability but less genetic diversity. If it happens often, you will have a far higher genetic diversity. As alleles are introduced into any population, there is chance at work but for more common is that female mate selection controls the spread of alleles. In Cyps, they have a large amount of gene flow around the lake... So oddball cyps are common even in F1 offspring. Birchardi seem to form massive colonies of related individuals in the wild.... I admit i am ignorant about how frequently any male or female goes a wandering to other colonies. I would need to research to see if birchardi are a naturally inbreeding species or not. Outbreeding depression is, of course, a threat to our breeding success for any naturally inbreeding species.

The opposite is true as well.... Inbreeding is a threat to our breeding success for any naturally outcrossing species.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I now understand. 8) Belief its and important or significant part of cichlid breeding may follow.

Is it the outbreeding or the following inbreeding that caurses the problem?
My guess is its the following inbreeding, yes?
But then in captive populations you can not keep em without inbreeding so best see it as a whole?
The intitial problem came from introducing new genes to the population by outcrossing.

Trouble is it is not what I learned in genetics/zoology some years ago now so prob a difficult slow (and argumentative) student.
The dogma about pairs being bad, unpaired good (not just the bits which code for known functions but the whole code much of which aparently does little), the spread of a of a initialy rare gene/allel depending on how well it works with others rather than with itself. Where it may work well or badly, often badly. Against a theory that outbreeding may caurse more problems than it cures.

Can you give a documented example of outbreeding depression to make it real for me?

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Can you give a documented example of outbreeding depression to make it real for me?


google will turn up plenty... e.g. 1st hit from Google:
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/theses-an ... sdiss=3156

Just shows how hard this is to predict.



24Tropheus said:


> Is it the outbreeding or the following inbreeding that caurses the problem?
> My guess is its the following inbreeding, yes?
> But then in captive populations you can not keep em without inbreeding so best see it as a whole?


It is a possibility that hybridization/inbreeding could create "some" of the offspring smaller. We lack way to much information to even make an educated guess though so I won't even go there. It isn't unheard of at all for a domesticated bloodline to suffer inbreeding depression within just a couple of generations and show an average decrease in size. 
E.g. http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... cbedad50cd

You can see in that paper that careful outcrossing might be able to help the bloodline, but not all crossbreeding could improve if there are traits that conflict. This is not the same situation as our birchardi, so I caution strongly against thinking that this "is" the same situation as the birchardi. All it means is that it "could" be a useful starting point for plenty of researching.

To bring this back around to the birchardi situation... a lack of growth could be food related, environment related (O2, stressors,etc.) and it could be from a genetic cause or it could be from combinations of ALL of the above. Your observations of captive stock of birchardi are valid observations and you could definately say that you noticed that your bloodline seemed smaller with each generation as your observation is a good one... we just have to stop ourselves making too far of a leap into any conclusions from a general observation.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I ment (but did not say clearly  ) an example of where breeding a inbred variant with the one of the wild population it decended from leads to outbreeding depression in later inbred individuals. (Not crossing then inbreeding).

Just changed the goal posts I know but forgive me.

I prob overstated what I have seen  . Not that each generation is smaller than the last but that now after keeping them for 8 years, generation on generation (none of the WC or F1s left but not much more info than that) they do not reach the size of the original WC or the first generation from the WC.

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Number6 said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not undersand this outbreeding depression. Though. :-?
> ...


Sigal Balshine is the individual working most closely with brichardi that I know of. She's done a lot of behavioural work, but has some studies dealing with genetics. You may want to investigate her work if you're interested.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Thanks for that.
Interesting but nothing new?
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=64
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=78
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=84
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=99

Just tells us pretty much what everyone knows. Each group is very closely related and co operates but only the dominant pair get to breed (mostly) but not much about how much mating there is between groups or how new groups are estabished. From an existing group or a mixing of groups.

I can not find anything on how related the dominant pair are to each other. So no clue as to wheather all natural inbreeders or some outbreeding? Each group naturaly inbreeds once established (sub doms taking over the group after the death of the doms, these being very closely related) but nothing on how often (or how) new groups start.

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

24Tropheus said:


> Thanks for that.
> Interesting but nothing new?
> http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=64
> http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/~sigal/p ... .php?id=78
> ...


Did you read beyond the abstract?


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Not usualy (unless something seems wrong or they are badly written). Everything important in the abstract. Thats what they are for. :wink:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Sorry Darkside that answer was rather flipant. Yep I am reading her work and finding more and more interesting stuff each day. Not just the abstracts. But no luck on finding exact figures on individuals joining or moving between groups (or forming new groups) (and how related these individuals usualy are) yet but yep it for sure happens (the moving between groups) according to her work. Rather oddly sub dominant individuals tend to move to groups where there is a large dominant pair regardless of the fact they recieve more aggression there and have less chance of breeding! :-?

Hard to coppy in tanks unless I can get exact figures and make a bit more sence out of all the info.

All the best James


----------



## johnchor (Apr 2, 2011)

any folks here has a pix of 6" N.bichardi?


----------

