• You liked BFD7 now you should join this forum and of course become a club member to see what CCA is all about.
  • Thank you to everyone who registered and showed up for the BIG Fish Deal #7.

F What?

DiscusnAfricans

Past President
So the deeper I get into the fish hobby, the more I realize there is still a lot to learn. I've graduated past the standard communities, bred a few different types of fish, and truly began to appreciate the importance of quality stock. Now, quality stock may mean different things to different people. I've noticed that a lot of breeders and online vendors seem to advertise mostly F1 stock. There was even a recent case where an online vendor was found to have "accidentally" mislabeled some of their fish for sale as F1. The reasons behind this accident were open to debate.

F0 being wild caught, F1 being 1st generation from wild parents, but anything F2 or beyond is just considered TR. It seems that people believe the value of a fish decreases with an increasing F number. What about line bred species? Is a F1 peacock better than a line bred peacock? I know this is subjective, but I'm just curious to hear people's rationalizations for their preference.

In what case is a line bred fish preferred over a fish bred from wild parents? Are there reasons to line breed fish other than personal preference to develop specific traits? Is there a value in continuing to export fish from their natural habitats that have already been well established in the hobby?

I'm not looking for an ethics discussion here, but of course any opinion is welcome.
 

jonclark96

Past CCA President
The whole F-number discussion can get out of hand if it gets spun that only F0 fish are "good" and everything else is "bad". Personally, I don't have many wild fish and would hesitate to spend a large premium on wilds rather than tank raised. If there was a species I was looking to keep that I could only get wilds, then I would go for it. I have a lot of cool fish that I enjoy keeping regardless of what generation from the wild they are. Most have their own personalities and are fun to watch. Do wilds really look all that different? I guess that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would suspect the F1 fish are more hearty than their wild counterparts and are better suited for life in the aquarium as they have never known anything different.
 

dogofwar

CCA Members
First, I think that there is great value in tracking "F" numbers beyond F1 for wild-type fish.

I'd much rather have an F12 fish with provenance back to a known location than a fish labled "F1" that comes from unknown provenance...

Next, people make way, way too much of a couple of generations of inbreeding of fish. Maintaining quality stock starts with quality fish of known provenance...and culling unusual, sickly, deformed, etc. offspring. Unless, of course, that the point of the breeding effort is to develop fish that are different from wild-type fish (e.g. German Red Peacocks or veil tail angels, etc.).

Finally, the filial system is equally useful in tracking generations of line breeding, crosses of hybrids or generations from wild . The side of the hobby involved in the creation of fancy fish (through hybridization, line breeding or both) must keep close track of their "lines" through many generations...or they woudn't have been successful in developing the array of fancy fish that have been the foundation of the hobby for generations...

If only the "wild-type" side of the hobby could be so consientious ;)

Matt
 
Last edited:

Avatar

Plenipotentiary-at-large
The whole F-number discussion can get out of hand if it gets spun that only F0 fish are "good" and everything else is "bad". Personally, I don't have many wild fish and would hesitate to spend a large premium on wilds rather than tank raised. If there was a species I was looking to keep that I could only get wilds, then I would go for it. I have a lot of cool fish that I enjoy keeping regardless of what generation from the wild they are. Most have their own personalities and are fun to watch. Do wilds really look all that different? I guess that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would suspect the F1 fish are more hearty than their wild counterparts and are better suited for life in the aquarium as they have never known anything different.

Agree with JC and Matt - not much difference between an F0 and an F1 unless the parents happen to be related which is not as unlikely as some people imagine. It's only in subsequent breeding that the diversity position has any foundation at all and genetically speaking if you're not line breeding and periodically making the effort to introduce specimens from different sources into the breeding pool/line the argument for F0/wild genetic superiority disintegrates.

Lot of advantages with captive bred in every respect, almost none that are legitimate with wilds (get ready for the saviors of third world economies) and a significant number of negatives. Personally I believe that many people consider "wild" to be a badge of honor and try and use genetic arguments that they don't really understand as justification in the classic 'reverse hypothesis' manner.

Need to recall that these are fish - inbreeding is far far less an issue than it is for 'higher' life forms like humans. Seems someone gave me some endlers recently that have basically been line/intra-breeding for around 10 years. They look great. May be/probably less genetically diverse than their wild kindred at this point but since there are next to no variables in their never changing environment, what would that smidgen of extra diversity serve?

Breeders rock - just ask them. And if anyone is still hung up about spawning F1s to sell progeny, you could always get pairs from different sources and swap the males/females around to produce two unrelated couples. That effectively makes them F0 from a genetic standpoint and eliminates any downside that comes from buying wild. Pretty cool.


 

illpoet

Members
i'm really new to this level of the hobby and i was surprised to find out that wild caught specimans are considered more valuable than tank raised. It seems really backward to me for the arguments put forth in the previous threads. I'm really interested/working towards keeping fronts and the f1/f0 is very overused in that species imo. I even read an article that said "tell a serious frontosa hobbyist that you have F2 stock and he'll hang up on you". Avatar is right, inbreeding in fish is not nearly as serious as it would be in mammals. I think as long as every 3rd or 4th generation of fish you introduce new blood your fish will still be genetically very strong. To paraphrase Marc Elieson on Peacocks "it seems that some peacocks have actually evolved over time from line breeding to actually inhabit the aquarium as their natural habitat". With cichlids especially (since they are miracles of speedy adaptation) you'd think that well cared for line bred/captive bred specimans would be more sought after. Great discussion topic either way :)
 

mscichlid

Founder
The wilds' value is partially reflected by the attached fees of importation and shipping. Their 'value' could also be good for strengthening line bred fish.
 

Avatar

Plenipotentiary-at-large
The wilds' value is partially reflected by the attached fees of importation and shipping. Their 'value' could also be good for strengthening line bred fish.

Good point about distinction between economic and subjective/genetic value. The same "strengthening" however can/could generally be accomplished with specimens from other captive bred sources as 'robustness' is not not in any way restricted to wild fish. Very credible argument that because they've been semi-naturally 'selected' for survival in captivity (by tank conditions) and/or unnaturally selected by humans (on the basis of desired or the absence of undesirable qualities) that they're actually superior to wild specimens for purposes of "strengthening". As Matt said, really about quality of stock and either way there's an element of 'rolling the dice' every time.
 

mrkillie

Members
First of all, F0 doesn't exist except in tornados. Somewhere along the line someone mistakenly designated wild caught fish as F0 and it caught on, but it isn't correct and is terminology that is not used in the scientific arena. Think about it, if F1 is the first generation (from genetically distinct parents-not necessarily from the wild-as Sam "Avatar" alluded), and F2 is the second generation, then by definition there is no fish at the oth level. Just like 12:00 pm is NOT noon (think about it-12:00 post meridiem-or past midday? - that's midnight folks!). Someone just said it one day and it caught on, but it doesn't make it right.

sibling.gif


That said, I prefer at least F2 stock. The reasons are simple - first, many females of different species of fishes look alike, and without DNA testing you really can't be sure that you have a male and female of the same species when caught from the wild, especially new species. Second, Males and females of closely related species will spawn when placed in close proximity and with no mates of their own to choose from (and sometimes even with mates of their own to choose from). This usually results in sterile offspring. If you are able to get F2, then the original pair was most likely of the same species and future generations are probably possible.

Granted, this is probably more the case with killifish (as I am more used to) than with cichlids, but there are plenty of cichlids whose females are very similar. And how is one to know which female goes with which male when first caught?
 

mscichlid

Founder
And how is one to know which female goes with which male when first caught?

Personally. I like the designator of F0; even if in the real world it has nothing to do with fish.

The fish will indicate if they are of the same species by spawning and breeding true.

Ah, but in the case of discus...
 

Tony

Alligator Snapping Turtle/Past Pres
I think as long as every 3rd or 4th generation of fish you introduce new blood your fish will still be genetically very strong.

I mean...yeah, look at British royalty, they turned out alright, right? :wink:


Good point about distinction between economic and subjective/genetic value. The same "strengthening" however can/could generally be accomplished with specimens from other captive bred sources as 'robustness' is not not in any way restricted to wild fish. Very credible argument that because they've been semi-naturally 'selected' for survival in captivity (by tank conditions) and/or unnaturally selected by humans (on the basis of desired or the absence of undesirable qualities) that they're actually superior to wild specimens for purposes of "strengthening". As Matt said, really about quality of stock and either way there's an element of 'rolling the dice' every time.

I'm with pretty much on the same page as you guys. Shoot, I've had this same discussion with a few of you numerous times in the past.

In terms of health, F1+ fish are better than wild caught fish, hands-down. In my experience with some wild caught fish, some are pretty robust, while others never seem to get as healthy as tank-raised fish. It's a combination of a few factors: inferior nutrition in the wild, common presence of latent parasites and them not being used to the inability to flee a more aggressive fish. These factors give them a disadvantage going into the glass box that is generally not overcome if housed with tan-raised fish.

The problem with a certain fish and differing genetic stock is that these things are generally pretty easy to breed. Before you know it, a whole region will all have the same stock from a common set of genes. I am sure that there are several species of uncommon rift lake fish that 10 folks keep in CCA/ECC. Besides those folks, there are easily twice as many out there in this same area that also have a given species. Odds are that the majority came from the same source. So that is where the added value in fish closer to the F0 comes into play.

I'd much rather have an F12 fish with provenance back to a known location than a fish labled "F1" that comes from unknown provenance...

Next, people make way, way too much of a couple of generations of inbreeding of fish. Maintaining quality stock starts with quality fish of known provenance...and culling unusual, sickly, deformed, etc. offspring.

^THIS.
 
I agree with a lot that has been said so far. The only thing to add is that an "F" assigned number is only as good as the person assigning it. I think that, unfortunately, the mentality of F0 or F1 is good and everything else is crap leads to some people naming them as such to be able to sell them or demand a higher price. Working in the industry I saw 1-2" peacocks fully colored, then slowly loosing all color after being in stock tanks. This only gives more proof that some will do whatever it takes to sell their fish. Luckily those are the minority but they are out there for sure.

I think the "F" designation was important at a time when there were not many of a species in captivity and it was important for the integrity of the breed to track the bloodline. Who's to say if you buy a M/F pr. of F0's they aren't from the same bloodline anyway? Is it likely? maybe not, but surely possible.
 

DiscusnAfricans

Past President
First of all, F0 doesn't exist except in tornados. Somewhere along the line someone mistakenly designated wild caught fish as F0 and it caught on, but it isn't correct and is terminology that is not used in the scientific arena. Think about it, if F1 is the first generation (from genetically distinct parents-not necessarily from the wild-as Sam "Avatar" alluded), and F2 is the second generation, then by definition there is no fish at the oth level.

I realize this was an arbitrary designation started by someone in the field, but since its the only system that seems to be used as a standard across the board, its the only way to discuss this topic in terms most people would be able to relate. It was originally most commonly used for genetic studies by Mendel, but the concept has been generalized to other aspects of breeding.

It is...but I actually thought it was going another direction with that tile line :eek:
:D
I figured that would at least get people to open the topic and start reading;).
 

dogofwar

CCA Members
Two good, but debatable, points :)

I think that unfortunately some folks equate cost with value.

Rare (or infrequently imported) wild fish tend to cost a lot. For good reason. That doesn't mean that they're superior to either less rare or captive bred specimens. It just costs a lot to collect them and get them to the marketplace. I always laugh when I hear about people coveting "Blue Eye Plecos"...now that they're $1,000 each and rare...vs. back in the day when they were $20 and "Poor man's Royal Plecos"...

As an aside, I'm really suspicious when I see large, "wild" specimens of fish from really remote places (or places where it's not legal to export fish) going for not much $$$...

It's no accident that some of the most enjoyable, colorful aquarium fish are commonly available in the hobby...and have been for generations. There's an obvious market for these fish...the latest uber-rare "fad" fish tend to rise and fall in popularity based on who has them vs. what they are.

Introducing wild fish into a "fancy" line of fish...can have positive benefits (e.g. vigor, fry raising instincts, etc.) but can also undermine years of work in developing the desired characteristics (i.e. the point of the line breeding).

Matt

The wilds' value is partially reflected by the attached fees of importation and shipping. Their 'value' could also be good for strengthening line bred fish.
 

DiscusnAfricans

Past President
Introducing wild fish into a "fancy" line of fish...can have positive benefits (e.g. vigor, fry raising instincts, etc.) but can also undermine years of work in developing the desired characteristics (i.e. the point of the line breeding).
You mean there's more to it than just breeding fish and culling the undesirables?:p

Found some articles that had some interesting information. The following has a few links at the bottom that go into similar topics:
http://www.angelsplus.com/ArticleOutcrossing.htm

Very interesting article geared specifically towards Africans, talking about differences between line-breeding and hybridization:
http://www.ohiexchange.com/armke/hybridization_and_line_breeding.html

Some basic definitions:
http://sites.google.com/site/realhardcichlidskennel/home/types-of-breeding

Feel free to post any more articles if people find anything interesting they'd like to share.
 

Avatar

Plenipotentiary-at-large
Nothing to see, move along here...

First of all, F0 doesn't exist except in tornados. Somewhere along the line someone mistakenly designated wild caught fish as F0 and it caught on, but it isn't correct and is terminology that is not used in the scientific arena. Think about it, if F1 is the first generation (from genetically distinct parents-not necessarily from the wild-as Sam "Avatar" alluded), and F2 is the second generation, then by definition there is no fish at the oth level. Just like 12:00 pm is NOT noon (think about it-12:00 post meridiem-or past midday? - that's midnight folks!). Someone just said it one day and it caught on, but it doesn't make it right./QUOTE]

Sir, with all respect to the technical/historic veracity of your statement, as indicated by DA, 'F0' is commonly used and has been accorded default status as a 'wild' designator irrespective of it's not being originally used by Mendel, et al. in establishing the foundations for modern genetics. Saying FO "doesn't exist" ignores the reality of its common usage and general acceptance, and like it or not, FO is and will continue to increasingly be a way of indicating 'base-bloodline' in the aquatic arena, that is to say 'wild caught'.

'Correct' is in this case subjective, i.e., word meanings often change over time to reflect common/modern usage just as terms are created or co-opted all the time to facilitate communication. It's our hobby and we may do whatever we like with language to facilitate that communication amongst ourselves especially if there is general agreement on terminology - it's just evolution. Unless and until someone introduces a superior designator or terminology, FO is going to signify wild and there's not anything that can be done about it. Technical/historic correctness aside, the most important thing is that everyone understands what is meant by what is being said. As an imagined closet champion of grammatical correctness and factuality, I sympathize, but the bottom line is that on this one, "the train has done left the station and it's not coming back".



"What is 'tis rarely what was".
 

Nathan

Members
I think its a dumb system even if its caught on, doesn't make much sense either.
But what does it matter, its not like anyones even tracking these fish.
 

fishology

Members
dont get me started on this one :) !!!! f this f that... hmmmmm.. always has me wondering.. and line breeding ... its all in what you like...
 
Top