Colby, I hope you find my response throught provoking. I also hope I am not sounding repetitive.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7725296#post7725296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by colby
1. Ornamental aquaculture should be viewed as just that, ornamental aquaculture. While many if not all people involved in this process are driven in large by a desire to help the oceans and ease the pressure on natural poulations, they still have to make money...this is where hybrids come in. Many hybrids can be very attractive and thus very marketable. This increased marketability not only helps the suppliers make money, it is a substitute fish for a wc. So I disagree with the notion that cb hybrids are not productive in helping conserve natural populations of fish.
I will agree that in most all businesses the motivation and end goal is to produce a profit. I do concede that a man-made hybrid, IF deemed desireable by the public, can definitely HELP a company's bottom line - afterall, where else could you get an "Indigo" other than ORA (or make them yourself). In the case of this particular hybrid, if ORA were to decide to no longer produce it, I'm pretty sure someone else out there would take a stab at it....it IS a pretty fish.
I must disagree with the assertion that hybrids help conserve natural populations of fish. Consider the Indigo. What does this fish really replace? Someone considering an Indigo might otherwise be considering another basslet / dottyback / psuedochromis. The other possibility is that it raises overall demand for dottybacks in general by creating NEW demand for this "NEW PRODUCT".
MOST of the popular dottyback species are already being produced by commercial breeders. What happens if the Indigo becomes popular enough? It's likely the parental species will be maintained in captivity (in order to produce more Indigos). However, with the limited resources of an aquaculture facility, if suddenly the demand for Indigos outstrips the current capacity, perhaps another species may need to be dropped from the breeding program? So what goes? Perhaps P. springeri? (afterall, it looks like the Indigo's red-headed stepchild).
ORA already has several species that they do not produce regularly, or have produced at one point but no longer do. In my hypothetical example, ORA decides to regularly produce the Hybrid "INDIGO DOTTYBACK" to a level in which their facility must drop another "variety". Just my hunch, but the SPECIES P. springeri would be the one to dro
What happens to folks who WANT P. springeri? They're now forced to go back to getting WILD CAUGHT fish. Of course this example assumes that ORA has a finite space and finite resources to work with. So in this hypothetical, rhetorical example, how has the HYBRID helped conserve species in the wild?
What has happened is the HYBRID has the potential to push out a SPECIES from captive production based on it's potential for perhaps greater short-term profits based on the rarity, newness and exclusivity of the HYBRID.
We shouldn't forget that with all the current news about global warming, ocean acidification and more that the commercial captive breeders may one day find themselves in an "ark" situation. Maybe not in my lifetime (although I'm not so sure anymore), but if things don't change we could very well find ourselves facing a situation where captive production is the only means of maintaining the planet's biodiversity.
While it's somewhat a MORAL qualm I have, I firmly believe that "ornamental mariculturists" (let's use the correct jargon) shouldn't waste their time trying to create "new products" in the form of hybrids. In addition to the aforementioned reasons why hybrids can be detrimental to captive stocks I'll simply raise the argument again that there are most likely FAR MORE PROFITABLE avenues to pursue.
There are something like 20, 25 SPECIES of clownfish, some species varieities that command STAGGERING prices simply due to their rarity in the trade? Why not take existing skills and knowledge and raise some of the MANY species that AREN'T being commercially produced (Allardi, Nigripes, McCullochi etc...)?
Or better still, why not use existing profits to venture into new areas of fish production....we still haven't seen Captive Bred Mandarins at the LFS...granted they're certainly harder than dottybacks for a HOBBYIST but for a full-time mariculture facility with access to the tools, knowledge and resources, wouldn't this be a better, more environmentally concious goal to pursue?
Here's my short list of species that based on current knowledge COULD be captively produced with a bit of R&D and have the potential for big profits:
Blue Spotted Jawfish
ANY of the Genicanthus Angelfish (G. personatus has already been done) - if RCT can produce captive bred Centropyge colini for $300 at 1.25", I see NO issues with producing Bellus Angelfish, Wantanabaes and some of the truly rare species...the REWARD is definitely there with a relatively SMALL investment in broodstock.
FOR THAT MATTER, ANY Angelfish
Damselfish - why isn't anyone doing Starkii and the rarer-still damsels? Vanderbilt's Chromis is a KNOCKOUT when small...perfect fish for mariculture.
Pipefish
Dragonettes
The rarer Clownfish not already being produced
Drums (when's the last time you saw a Jacknife fish at the LFS...the know-how is already out there)
Hawkfish and Anthias - how much more difficult could these possibly be than Mandarins...I don't see how larvae could get any smaller than the good 'ole Synchiropus
Basses and Basslets - there's a whole HOST of rare/expensive basslets and such that could likely easily be produced but simply aren't...Swissguards, Swalesis, the good 'ole "Wrasse Bass"...the list goes on and on
GOBIES & FIREFISH - there's a whole slew of these that haven't been touched - why not have Captive Bred "Flaming Prawn Gobies"? Considering they go for $100 to $150 each...it's a relative SMALL investment if you can turn around and successfully produce them. Someone out there is GOING to crack the Firefish nut...once that's done, here come the Helfrichi's....
BLENNIES - These have been done already too...there is existing success to build on..
TANGS - someone got Zebrasoma way out there into at least the presettlement stages...there's experience to build on in this dept. as well.
LIONFISH - how far off could they be from the frogfish and anglers (and they don't have the pesky problem of trying to eat their mates)...how many lionfish are sold every year?
EELS - some are already cultured for FOOD, so why not ornamentals?
----
So, to sum it up, with ALL those existing possibilities, I believe an industry leading company like ORA would better serve their audience by working with SPECIES and advancing the culture of "undone" groups or species within a family that already has a pretty solid base of information and techniques? Producing HYBRIDS serves no conservation-oriented goal; it has the potential to increase general demand, to bump species out of production, and in some cases (as explained earlier with African Cichlids) it can muddle the captive genetic stock as a whole, rendering the species problematic or a poor performer, thus ultimately losing that species in captive propagation (while I don't think anyone is even LOOKING, what are the chances we could reestablish good lines of Hap. sp. "Flameback" from wild caught stocks at this point?)
----
Any one breeding sw fish will be painfully aware of the intense labor required to raise their fry and therefore will not "accidentally" produce hybrid fish..JMO...
Again, you've only raised the spectre of pair-bonding clownfish. Let's just say that I was raising Synchiropus and kept both S. picturatus and S. splendidus in the tank, having set up a mechanism to collect the spawn which I would then gather the following morning. I don't get to watch the actual spawn, so I don't know which fish are the parents....I "assume" they are of the proper species so I raise them.
THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED with SEAHORSES and seems to be a problem already! Sure, a professional breeder knows better than to keep more than one closely related species per tank when breeding, but the same is not necessarily the case with the casual hobbyist breeder. I wish I could find an example picture of a hybrid seahorse, but suffice it to say that from what I've seen the hybrid has no redeeming qualities; nothing that is special or unique when compared to the parental species.
Not to pick on Ocean Rider (I have a great pair of H. barbouri from them), but some of their seahorse "varieties" are not listed with species names. These "varieties" are actually trademarked as well! To make matters worse, there is actually an agreement upon purchase that you WILL NOT breed these fish. This is a great thing for Ocean Rider; if you want a "Sunburst" seahorse they are the ONLY place you can go and get it.
In my book, this doesn't HELP conserve species or take pressure off of wild seahorses (although CITES regulations have helped in that dept.). What ORA's "vareities" do is increase demand for their particular seahorses and also may potentially increase demand for seahorses in general (before I saw some Ocean Rider ponies chowing down on frozen mysis at the LFS, I had never had interest in keeping seahorses). Ocean Rider would better serve the conservation of seahorses in the wild by producing more of these wild species...afterall...if I want H. hystrix to try to breed I currently have no source OTHER than wild caught or searching out some private individual who happens to be breeding the species. How has Ocean Rider's captive propagation helped seahorses? Using myself as an example, I not only GAINED an interest in seahorses, but ultimately want to work with seahorses that they are not currently producing...I don't want 'Mustangs' or 'Braziliero Reds', I want H. hystrix so I MAY just have to find a legally wild collected pair to work with (for the record, I'm not actually looking for H. hystrix or ANY fish at this point...I have my hands PLENTY FULL).
To our knowledge ALL clowns can cross breed, therefore I feel they should all be considered one large specie with many different geographical variations...
Colby, I have to shoot you down on this one as being flat out WRONG. A LOT of different species can cross-breed and produce offspring (Mule, Blood Parrot Cichlid etc..). SOME can even produce VIABLE offspring that can be again bred to each other or parents to produce a 2nd generation of viable offspring (many of the closely related Victorian Haplochromines for example). For a clownfish example, it is my understanding that while you MIGHT be able to produce viable offspring from a mating of A. occelaris and A. percula, the larvae will not be reproductively viable.
HOWEVER, even if the A. occelaris X A. percula cross could produce multiple generations of viable offspring from the initial cross, this is STILL NOT the commonly accepted definition of a SPECIES. You're completely omitting the part about the ability to mate with each other in the WILD. Natural geographic barriers prevent our clownfish species from mating in the wild. Proper MATE SELECTION eliminates sympatric species from hybridizing in the wild.
So, for our clownfish species, it is NOT realistic or rhetorically acceptable to make they argument that all varieties of clownfish are in fact one species comprised of a slew of varients, sub-species etc.
FWIW,
Matt
Yeah, captive bred mandarins, at this rate, are gonna be pretty darn expensive!
