Re[2]: Heterozygosity and Rainbows
GWLANG at ccmail.monsanto.com
Mon, 3 Jun 1996 15:18:36 -0500
Again I am challenging you all that keep saying "bad stock" of pygmaea,
ie the first collection from 1991. Who came up with that stuff? Are you
sure it just isn't another example of poor quality fish keeping again?
My fish are doing fine and they produce viable stock. They do get a
little touchy if the water starts to become acid, ie not doing weekly
water changes on them. (my water is of a 150ppm GH and ~2 degrees
(36ppm) KH or carbonate hardness. If you are going to start yammering
about "bad stock" please back up these supposed facts. Has the person
that started this rumor now keeping the second stocking AND are they
keeping them under the same water conditions that they did the first
stock? If you notice Roy's comments on the huge sex swings with this
rainbow you could also get very different looking (possibly deformed
fish) if you kept them under conditions that were very unfavorable for
growth. On my swing through the east coast last month someone noted that
several of their local club members were doing quite well with the
original "first collection" stock. No mention of bent dorsals, missing
fins or anything else that would suggest a problem. Know your facts and
keep em clean :-) before proclaiming misleading statements.
Gary Lange
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Heterozygosity and Rainbows
From: rainbowfish-owner at pcug.org.au at INTERNET
Date: 6/3/96 9:36 AM
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Bruce Hansen wrote:
> As a corollary if you take some of the good genes from the stabilised =
> population and introduce them to the "bad" population you may or may not =
> improve it?Hopefully it doesn't follow that you must outcross both ways.
Yes, you may improve it but it may take a number of generations to purge
out any bad alleles. IMO it is just better to ditch the bad stocks and
just work from the good ones as it far easier and safer. Other than
pygmaea I don't remember hearing about unusually "bad" stocks of rainbows
that appeared to be due to a "poor" founder other than pagwi (which is
not all bad). Anyone like to suggest any other stocks that have had what
they thing to be genetic problems?
Peter Unmack