Re: deformities
Adrian R. Tappin (atappin at ecn.net.au)
Sat, 10 Aug 1996 09:57:14 +1000
At 21:32 8/08/96 -0700, Peter unmack wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Peter Hughes (X) wrote:
>
>> year at the ANGFA convention I made the prediction that praecox had
>> already been inbred too much and that deformities would appear. I was
>> thought to be a bit strange for saying that, unfortunetly it is now true.
>
>I think that before one can say the fish are deformed as a result of
>inbreeding you should try breeding from that stock to see if the same
>deformities show up. If they don't then it is almost certainly not
>genetic. Most of the "genetic" problems that people regularly report
>in rainbows is not genetic. It is the result of poor environment, not
>genes. I can create a thin rainbow by feeding lean and having some water
>current vs creating a deep bodied rainbow by feeding them heavily. I can
>bend their backs by feeding them a poor diet with poor water quality.
>This doesn't mean they are genetically poor fish though as their
>offspring, if raised under good conditions will be fine.
>
I would have to agree with Peter Unmack wholeheartedly, which I must say is
difficult to do sometimes ;-)
However, I have found that is most cases if you have a batch of deformed fry
you can discard them and breed the very same parents and the next batch will
be fine. I don't know why but if you only have a pair of fishes that produce
a deformed batch, dont dispare just try again, you may be surprised!
I might add that almost all the Misoolensis in Australia were bred from
stock that all had twisted caudal peduncles and the offspring were perfect????
On another note! don't waste your culled stock - turn them into fishfood!
Adrian T.
........................................
Adrian R. Tappin
atappin at ecn.net.au
http://www.ecn.net.au/~atappin/home.htm
........................................