I saw it too, I was tempted but not knowing what to expect in size kept me from pulling the triggerSaw this on exotic fish shop but not sure.thebiggerthebetter
Fishman Dave
Redtail catfish mixed with Lima catfish
- Thread starter christian360
- Start date
Nice info. Thank you for this. I am learning. So you have 1st hand experience with artificial fish breeding and/or hybridization? "Backyard" as you put it or commercial?
Let me try to pick your brain for the sake of my understanding, really, not at all an argument.
-- Why not invest all this money, energy and time into researching genuine fish species for aquaculture? Would this be any less "green"?
-- If worried about the escapes so much, can't they be sterilized? The hybrids in general are not 100% sterile, BTW.
-- Also, it seems to me the alleged "hybrid vigor" may be a myth.
-- The long term effects of hybridization are yet to be discovered, just as with the GMO foods, cloning, in-vitro human babies, and the rest of ethically questionable activities. For instance, production of new living macro-organisms that have never existed before should on paper lead to the appearance and development of new living microorganisms that have not existed before. This thought in my sick mind is somehow followed by a thought about AIDS, swine and avian flu, the latest and greatest coronavirus, and the likes.
^ I couldn't agree more. So many new ideas that are tested for 6 months, a year, 5 years and then proclaimed to be completely understood and 100% safe in the long term...even though those aren't long terms.
When a scientist says "Well, we once believed ABC but now we think XYZ..." then I think there might be something worth listening to.
But when a scientist says "We once believed ABC...but now we know XYZ..." then I find it worrisome.
When a scientist says "Well, we once believed ABC but now we think XYZ..." then I think there might be something worth listening to.
But when a scientist says "We once believed ABC...but now we know XYZ..." then I find it worrisome.
Hi Victor,
I would consider myself a hobbyist breeder although I have owned multiple retail aquarium stores, an ornamental fish import facility and worked on several commercial aquaculture ventures in the past (for interest). The thing with keeping and breeding fish professionally 7 days a week, 24 hours a day is that it is very easy to lose interest & enthusiasm so now I do something totally unrelated to fish for a living and nowadays I keep / breed fish purely for interest. I still have several hundred tanks /fish rooms/pond facilities from previous and very passionate just as you are but it's a hobby and I'm careful to keep it that way now.
Yes I am interested in hormone induced breeding. It's an exciting and challenging aspect of fish keeping. I have many many years of breeding fish naturally as well and continue to do both. I am a member of several international aquaculture organisation's and I like to meet fish scientists and third world fish farmers alike. There is a lot of development that doesn't make the Internet because. .. why would it? I'm fortunate enough to be able to visit many different facilities around the world if someone is gracious enough to invite me. And many public aquariums too.
However, I can't speak on behalf of anyone except myself. All my opinions are mine alone.
There is a difference between aquaculture fish as food species and ornamental fish as niche market. Sometimes there is overlap creating opportunistic supply, sometimes there are specialist niche fish breeders.
Why do they hybridize or sterilize fish fertility or create single sex fish? There are multiple reasons but as this costs time, effort and money you can be sure it is worth the effort or it wouldn't happen.
Some examples of well established sterilizing techniques include hyperbaric pressure shock, temp shock, hormone overload, gene silencing etc. Another aspect is controlling the sex off all progeny however they are still fertile. Slightly different but related is a technique of starving fish to promote storage of reserves to condition for breeding . So many different aspects which can be applied elsewhere.
Yes hybrid vigor is definitely advantagous but limited to the first filial (F1) so you need to return to the original species breeding to maintain benefits.
I started off as a purist fish breeder. The difficult thing for most hobbysit fish keepers to comprehend is that "pure species " is a man made artificial definition /classification. And equally hard to understand is that a solid belief system may need to be discarded before new ideas start to make sense. Imagine if the world really was flat despite what we are taught? It takes a very open mind to consider that possibility. I hope no one takes offense. We only know what we know but as we gain experience and discuss ideas from different perspectives, sometimes we grow. For example, most icthyologists no longer study as individual fish species these days, rather related fish groups in an envirommental setting (often grouped by similar DNA). In the past, fish classification was influenced by those which split fish groups and then later by those which lumped fish groups. This cyclic trend continues today. Fish classification continues to change.
Anyway, I digress.
I'm sure there are real dangers with clone, genetic modification, etc. Just as there are real dangers of trying to keep a snapshot of a fish that continues to evolve and change in the wild.
I would consider myself a hobbyist breeder although I have owned multiple retail aquarium stores, an ornamental fish import facility and worked on several commercial aquaculture ventures in the past (for interest). The thing with keeping and breeding fish professionally 7 days a week, 24 hours a day is that it is very easy to lose interest & enthusiasm so now I do something totally unrelated to fish for a living and nowadays I keep / breed fish purely for interest. I still have several hundred tanks /fish rooms/pond facilities from previous and very passionate just as you are but it's a hobby and I'm careful to keep it that way now.
Yes I am interested in hormone induced breeding. It's an exciting and challenging aspect of fish keeping. I have many many years of breeding fish naturally as well and continue to do both. I am a member of several international aquaculture organisation's and I like to meet fish scientists and third world fish farmers alike. There is a lot of development that doesn't make the Internet because. .. why would it? I'm fortunate enough to be able to visit many different facilities around the world if someone is gracious enough to invite me. And many public aquariums too.
However, I can't speak on behalf of anyone except myself. All my opinions are mine alone.
There is a difference between aquaculture fish as food species and ornamental fish as niche market. Sometimes there is overlap creating opportunistic supply, sometimes there are specialist niche fish breeders.
Why do they hybridize or sterilize fish fertility or create single sex fish? There are multiple reasons but as this costs time, effort and money you can be sure it is worth the effort or it wouldn't happen.
Some examples of well established sterilizing techniques include hyperbaric pressure shock, temp shock, hormone overload, gene silencing etc. Another aspect is controlling the sex off all progeny however they are still fertile. Slightly different but related is a technique of starving fish to promote storage of reserves to condition for breeding . So many different aspects which can be applied elsewhere.
Yes hybrid vigor is definitely advantagous but limited to the first filial (F1) so you need to return to the original species breeding to maintain benefits.
I started off as a purist fish breeder. The difficult thing for most hobbysit fish keepers to comprehend is that "pure species " is a man made artificial definition /classification. And equally hard to understand is that a solid belief system may need to be discarded before new ideas start to make sense. Imagine if the world really was flat despite what we are taught? It takes a very open mind to consider that possibility. I hope no one takes offense. We only know what we know but as we gain experience and discuss ideas from different perspectives, sometimes we grow. For example, most icthyologists no longer study as individual fish species these days, rather related fish groups in an envirommental setting (often grouped by similar DNA). In the past, fish classification was influenced by those which split fish groups and then later by those which lumped fish groups. This cyclic trend continues today. Fish classification continues to change.
Anyway, I digress.
I'm sure there are real dangers with clone, genetic modification, etc. Just as there are real dangers of trying to keep a snapshot of a fish that continues to evolve and change in the wild.
One of the main points I forgot to say is that exactly like natural breeding, induced hormone breeding is often the simplist part. It is the hatching, first feeds and grow out of several thousand fish that is the most demanding.
Late last year, I assisted a fish farm in Asia to produce well over 300,000 baby datnoides from one spawn. I'm sure this could be done "naturally" in an artificial environment one day but right now, it's better to have these fish available this way than to have fishermen netting them out of the wild.
Possibly not so good for the fishermen though.
Late last year, I assisted a fish farm in Asia to produce well over 300,000 baby datnoides from one spawn. I'm sure this could be done "naturally" in an artificial environment one day but right now, it's better to have these fish available this way than to have fishermen netting them out of the wild.
Possibly not so good for the fishermen though.
Worth what? And to whom? The mere fact that some idea is making someone money certainly makes it worthwhile to that person...but to the rest of the world...? Are you actually suggesting that because someone, somewhere spends some time and money to do something...that the enterprise in question is, by definition, worthwhile?
The classification system is indeed entirely arbitrary; lumpers and splitters continue to argue and debate. Using that as an explanation or a justification for using every artificial means necessary to do absolutely anything that can technically be done is disingenuous at best.
I'm sure I agree with the first sentence above. However, could you explain exactly what dangers exist in trying to not meddle with every aspect of natural speciation? Would there actually be dangers associated with not creating every freak of un-nature that occurs to the mind of someone with the time, resources, facilities and ability to do so?
Certainly, there is a chance that money will remain un-made, perhaps that boredom will become unbearable for the "mad scientist" types...but are those really "dangers"? I think that's a pretty arbitrary use of that term.
I know that in today's sensitive world it is just not proper to question the ethics of other people or cultures. However, when human knowledge has grown to the point where we are creating "new" organisms that would never have existed otherwise, is it really mere ethics that says "Whoa...do we know what we are doing here? And the long-term effects of doing it may be?"...or is it just common sense?
Look at the long-term deleterious effects that result from simple introductions of invasive species from one part of the world to another. Some of those introductions were even done purposely, with the "knowledge" firmly in mind that they would be to the good. Oops! Where did we go wrong?
In the real world, "Measure twice...cut once" always works out better in the long run than "Hey! I bet this'll work...let's try it!" When you are constructing something for a living, the latter sentiment will often cost you your job. When you are playing around with systems that have evolved into the complexity of a planetary biosphere (and make no mistake, that's essentially what this discussion is about...)...what will it cost?
Thank you both.
Fishdance, I am at awe at your experience and knowledge. So cool to have here members like you. We appreciate you, your time and advice very much.
I think though that knowingly or not you have avoided answering two of the main questions posed above.
I am sure you have other priorities than to engage in an exchange where you may not learn anything... so no expectations.
...
FD: Why do they hybridize or sterilize fish fertility or create single sex fish? There are multiple reasons but as this costs time, effort and money you can be sure it is worth the effort or it wouldn't happen.
TBTB: First, this is not a pro argument but could be readily viewed as a circular argument. Second, the hybridization and sterilization must not be lumped, because the latter is agreed upon between us while the former is not at all. Also, list, please, the multiple reasons, if you will.
FD: Yes hybrid vigor is definitely advantagous but limited to the first filial (F1) so you need to return to the original species breeding to maintain benefits.
TBTB: Perhaps (and most likely) we get culled, underperforming hybrid fish, refuse, dinks, runts, and often obviously deformed junk, gene hiccups in our ornamental fish trade but I've not noted any notable advantage in the growth rate and carcass yield in say half a dozen TSNxRTC I raised from little to adults versus the parents. I agree my experience is of no or poor guidance and is utterly anti-scientific, but that's all I got to go by for the time being.
FD: The difficult thing for most hobbysit fish keepers to comprehend is that "pure species " is a man made artificial definition / classification.
TBTB: To me this is the case of baby and the bath water. I don't think anyone of us has a problem telling a petri dish, man-made species from genuine or natural or non-man-made. It is clear as day.
FD: And equally hard to understand is that a solid belief system may need to be discarded before new ideas start to make sense.
TBTB: Yes. It's a double edged sword that works for both good things and bad things, hence, not an argument pro or con. Just a for instance. Perhaps a poor example but... Do you know how the USA started its first actual nuclear bomb detonation test? Many scientists warned them that the consequences are unpredictable and that there was a chance the Pentagon might start an irreversible nuclear reaction that will fry the whole planet.
FD: I'm sure there are real dangers with clone, genetic modification, etc.
TBTB: So we agree on something. I am glad.
FD: Just as there are real dangers of trying to keep a snapshot of a fish that continues to evolve and change in the wild.
TBTB: And what exactly these dangers are? My thoughts may sound stupid or inapplicable, depending on what exactly you are saying, but the thought that's occurring to me is that animals evolve over millions of years. What does this have to do with the subject matter?n Also, what's preventing a breeder from utilizing the latest and the greatest wild specimen to replace or renew their gene pool?
FD: Late last year, I assisted a fish farm in Asia to produce well over 300,000 baby datnoides from one spawn. I'm sure this could be done "naturally" in an artificial environment one day but right now, it's better to have these fish available this way than to have fishermen netting them out of the wild.
TBTB: That's most commendable by my book but again we are talking a genuine species production for the justifiable needs of humankind, which I personally have no moral / ethical problem with.
Fishdance, I am at awe at your experience and knowledge. So cool to have here members like you. We appreciate you, your time and advice very much.
I think though that knowingly or not you have avoided answering two of the main questions posed above.
I am sure you have other priorities than to engage in an exchange where you may not learn anything... so no expectations.
...
FD: Why do they hybridize or sterilize fish fertility or create single sex fish? There are multiple reasons but as this costs time, effort and money you can be sure it is worth the effort or it wouldn't happen.
TBTB: First, this is not a pro argument but could be readily viewed as a circular argument. Second, the hybridization and sterilization must not be lumped, because the latter is agreed upon between us while the former is not at all. Also, list, please, the multiple reasons, if you will.
FD: Yes hybrid vigor is definitely advantagous but limited to the first filial (F1) so you need to return to the original species breeding to maintain benefits.
TBTB: Perhaps (and most likely) we get culled, underperforming hybrid fish, refuse, dinks, runts, and often obviously deformed junk, gene hiccups in our ornamental fish trade but I've not noted any notable advantage in the growth rate and carcass yield in say half a dozen TSNxRTC I raised from little to adults versus the parents. I agree my experience is of no or poor guidance and is utterly anti-scientific, but that's all I got to go by for the time being.
FD: The difficult thing for most hobbysit fish keepers to comprehend is that "pure species " is a man made artificial definition / classification.
TBTB: To me this is the case of baby and the bath water. I don't think anyone of us has a problem telling a petri dish, man-made species from genuine or natural or non-man-made. It is clear as day.
FD: And equally hard to understand is that a solid belief system may need to be discarded before new ideas start to make sense.
TBTB: Yes. It's a double edged sword that works for both good things and bad things, hence, not an argument pro or con. Just a for instance. Perhaps a poor example but... Do you know how the USA started its first actual nuclear bomb detonation test? Many scientists warned them that the consequences are unpredictable and that there was a chance the Pentagon might start an irreversible nuclear reaction that will fry the whole planet.
FD: I'm sure there are real dangers with clone, genetic modification, etc.
TBTB: So we agree on something. I am glad.
FD: Just as there are real dangers of trying to keep a snapshot of a fish that continues to evolve and change in the wild.
TBTB: And what exactly these dangers are? My thoughts may sound stupid or inapplicable, depending on what exactly you are saying, but the thought that's occurring to me is that animals evolve over millions of years. What does this have to do with the subject matter?n Also, what's preventing a breeder from utilizing the latest and the greatest wild specimen to replace or renew their gene pool?
FD: Late last year, I assisted a fish farm in Asia to produce well over 300,000 baby datnoides from one spawn. I'm sure this could be done "naturally" in an artificial environment one day but right now, it's better to have these fish available this way than to have fishermen netting them out of the wild.
TBTB: That's most commendable by my book but again we are talking a genuine species production for the justifiable needs of humankind, which I personally have no moral / ethical problem with.
I ordered 2 of these.. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Also have rtc's and tsn's and the hybrid of the 2 to compare. Also first post
