Wild Caught vs. Captive Bred

[benzjamin13]

Yes - lots of cichlids (like peacocks) are line bred by mating related fish with desirable characteristics (e.g. lots of red color).

Fish are line bred to have better color, size, etc. than wild ones.

But what would they be considered? F1, F2, F1.2

 

[Moontanman]

Its been recommended to me, and I pass on the recomendation, always buy captive bred. leave the ecosystems be. fish have a hard enough time thriving in the wild with pollution and fishing for food as it is.

I agree, when ever possible buy captive bred fish, some fish are so endangered in the wild it is immoral to buy a wild caught fish. It should be remembered that a fish in an aquarium is functionally dead. It is no longer a part of the ecosystem, it is dead as far as it's genes are concerned.

that goes especially for hard corals. it takes decades, if not hundreds of years, to grow a piece of coral that makes a good ornament in your tank. if everyone tried to keep coral tanks, there would be none left in the ocean. coral are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, but not necessary at all in your tank.

Not true dude, coral grow much faster than that, how do you figure all the captive bred coral grows to marketable size in just three or four months? I've grown coral heads as big as a basket ball in a couple of years. I saw an estimate that said a area of coral of less than one square mile could produce all the live coral for aquariums world wide many times over on an on going basis without collecting from anywhere else. I do agree that collecting coral willy nilly from the ocean is bad but lets get the facts straight. Coral can be cultivated more than fast enough to satisfy the market, the few that cannot be cultivated should be collected in limited amounts. Destruction of the reefs for dead aquarium decorations and for coffee table displays and to simply make concrete takes thousands of times as much coral from the ocean as collecting live coral for the aquarium does.

 

[skiptomyzoo]

Wild caught all the way. they have more natural instincts and they act more like they would in the wild not to mention that they are prettier and cheaper.

please explain, or maybe I am just buying from the wrong store

Unless F0 has some morphological difference that is developed in the wild (e.g. big lips from sucking on rocks), F1 is the same...only healthier.

I need someone to explain how F1 is somehow less "pure" than F0.

I am somewhat with you on this whole pure thing, as if the F0's parents werent caught and instead spawned in the wild, thier babies if caught would be also be referred to as F0's , but if the parents are caught and breed, the babies would be F1's even though the parents are the same exact fish, although the difference between the aquaria and lake is that you get to choose these parents, as well as the fact that some fish seem to show better colors if breed in the wild over aquaria. However, for all breeding purposes, I can still understand why the numbers (to trace the lines) are used. Less pure I guess in the sense of they lose some of thier natural instincts and 'wildness', and as a result are more domestic than thier parents, and in the sense that the farther you go down the line, the more the fish look less like the original parents. Although anything really past F1's I have to agree in less pure, due to inbreeding and in many cases untraceable breeding lines.

 

[dogofwar]

Line bred fish, especially those that have been line bred for long enough (enough generations) for desirable traits to be enhanced, would be considered tank raised (TR). They're several generations from wild.

But what would they be considered? F1, F2, F1.2

 

[pcfriedrich]

Not true dude, coral grow much faster than that, how do you figure all the captive bred coral grows to marketable size in just three or four months? I've grown coral heads as big as a basket ball in a couple of years. I saw an estimate that said a area of coral of less than one square mile could produce all the live coral for aquariums world wide many times over on an on going basis without collecting from anywhere else. I do agree that collecting coral willy nilly from the ocean is bad but lets get the facts straight. Coral can be cultivated more than fast enough to satisfy the market, the few that cannot be cultivated should be collected in limited amounts. Destruction of the reefs for dead aquarium decorations and for coffee table displays and to simply make concrete takes thousands of times as much coral from the ocean as collecting live coral for the aquarium does.

Guess my H.S. and College Marine Biology teachers were full of BS.

Maybe I'll go ahead and start a mini reef in my 20.

 

[Zoodiver]

Guess my H.S. and College Marine Biology teachers were full of BS.

Maybe I'll go ahead and start a mini reef in my 20.

Not completely.... it does take a long time to regenerate a damaged patch in the wild on a reef. Usually that is what they talk about. Coral that is small enough to fit in most home tanks doesn't take that long to grow out at all.

 

[pcfriedrich]

Not completely.... it does take a long time to regenerate a damaged patch in the wild on a reef. Usually that is what they talk about. Coral that is small enough to fit in most home tanks doesn't take that long to grow out at all.

okay. thats where the confusion came from. I was under the impression that coral took that long to regenerate because it took that long to grow, and that all aquarium coral (and most reef fish) was collected from the wild.

so most coral you buy in the lfs is aquarium cultivated?

 

[dogofwar]

I think that the confusion on this topic comes from the different ways that people assess beauty ("more colorful") and other positive attributes of aquarium fish.

Wild fish certainly look most authentic to what you'd actually find in the wild (duh!). That might not necessarily make them good aquarium inhabitants. Not all wild fish are the largest, healthiest, or most colorful examples of their species. In the wild, in fact, being large, bold and colorful can have some distinct disadvantages...and being small, flighty and sand colored can have some distinct advantages.

But most people would call small, flighty sand colored fish "poor examples" of their species, although they might be the fish that are best evolved for their wild habitat. In other words, many wild fish don't necessarily have the attributes that most aquarists value.

The wild fish that are collected generally have the characteristics that are most appealing to aquarists... and the F1 fish that result from breeding them reinforces these favorable characteristics (color, size, etc.). The F1 fish also have the benefits of a happy life of lots of food, clean water and not having internal parasites, damage from wild survival, collection, etc, etc.

Line breeding continues the process of selecting and reinforcing the prominance of characteristics that aquarists value. Over time you get a fish that is more brightly colored, bigger, longer finned, etc. than their wild ancestors: a fish that most people would call an "excellent example" of the species... albeit one that differs markedly from a particular native population.

 

[benzjamin13]

bump

 

[CDickes1988]

Depends on the fish really...
For example...

WC Polypterus Delhezi's stripes are much bolder than CB delhezi's. (usually)

CB and WC Polypterus Endlicheri both look very similar, stripes being bold in both specimens.

So I would opt for WC delhezi's and CB endli's.