Our Selective Breeding Process

Selective breeding is as old as the hills. It’s how carp became koi. So let’s be clear, no one is inventing anything here. We are simply taking well-documented practices and applying them to African cichlids. One reason for our success is a matter of numbers. Raising the quantity of fish that we do allows for the full expression of genetic potential. We were surprised to find that some species show hardly any variation and others a wide spectrum. Then, after you have the populations, you must keep detailed records. We’ve become compulsive note-takers. All information is loaded into a database and used as we make decisions. We can’t stress enough what a common sense process this is. However, we learned early on that understanding and doing are very different things. Aside from daily feeding, sorting and picking through fry is the most time-consuming hatchery job.

Any student of animal husbandry knows that results are a combination of “nature and nurture”. The nature part involves selecting stock to re-enforce certain characteristics as described above. But, this all goes for nothing if the nurturing is sub-standard. Here we’re talking about hatchery practices that impact water quality and low stocking densities that prevent stunting. But most important of all is feeding regimen. It would simplify our day if we could find one food to fit all fish. When you work with over a 100 species with differing dietary needs and very different sizes, it’s just not possible. We probably go farther than we need to in food variety, but believe the results justify the trouble. So, we use three kinds of flake food, three different micro-pellets, frozen brine shrimp, mysis shrimp and plankton… and live brine shrimp and black worms. It’s quite a buffet all fit onto a weekly spreadsheet.

Wild vs. Tank-Raised

This has been an ongoing debate in the aquarium hobby, but especially concerning Africans. The discussion is usually framed around the question, “Which is better?” But, clearly it’s not an either–or question. The correct answer is that we need both. At our hatchery we rely heavily on wild-caught breeding stock. When a specie is first discovered that’s the only way to start captive populations. And every program needs new genetic material after periods of in-breeding.

We will offer this note of caution. Not all wild fish are created equal! Many years ago we learned this lesson where it hurts most- in the pocketbook. Ad Konings had just published the first edition of his Tanganyikan Cichlids. In it was picture of a Julidochromis regani from Kipili. It was breathtakingly beautiful. It wasn’t long before the first imports arrived commanding big prices. We purchased a group of ten fish. Imagine our disappointment to find that four were beige; four light yellow and only two even close to the blazing gold and blue in Koning’s book. Had we been deceived? Not at all. Like any good photographer Mr. Konings shot the best-looking example of the specie he could find and the collectors caught what ever they could. We probably got a pretty accurate cross-section of the flock. While these J.regani display a wide color range, all species have their bell curves- some narrow some wide- as relates to color and vigor.

It’s satisfying to look at a tank of juvenile Kipili regani in our hatchery today. All are distant relatives of those first imports. We are 3 or 4 generations into the selection process with one influx of new wild stock. Because we have carefully picked new breeders, the fry are uniformly gold and blue and getting better. This is a pretty dramatic example, but typical of the pattern we use to enhance what nature provides.

What Traits are Worth Selecting?

This is the second perennial discussion surrounding selective breeding; and it’s hardly limited to the aquarium hobby. In captivity all degrees of recessive traits, that in Nature would surely never survive, can be nurtured and developed. So, it’s unavoidable that we have to make value judgments when we consider what to save. Where do we stand on the continuum between no selection at all and developing all manner of mutations, no matter how grotesque? Balloon-belly mollies and parrot cichlids come to mind. It’s a wide spectrum. Between these extremes lie, albinos, veil-tail or hi-fin varieties, closely-related hybrids, xanthomorphic and melanistic color forms… the list goes on. We’ll leave out the absurd practice of hormonal feed supplements, as it has no genetic impact, beyond probable sterility.

The cichlid world, to its credit, has mostly clung to the “natural” stance. But, let’s face it, we have our weaknesses. Those albino varieties are just too beautiful… not to mention, marketable. Even European breeders who shun all forms of hybridization introduced many albino strains of cichlids. The point is that a purist approach to selective breeding is indefensible. Sooner or later you’re going to sound like a hypocrite. One has to find a place that feels comfortable and ethical.

Our position has always been to first select for vigor and robustness, then to enhance the inherent color pattern and finnage of given specie. In practice this means taking advantage of many small mutations over multiple generations. We avoid hybrids even between closely related fish, not so much on ethical basis, but because it’s so unpredictable. Has anyone else ever thought, “If I could just cross a Tropheus duboisi with a Tropheus moliro, I’d get babies that were red with white spots!”? It’s just not that simple.

We’ve seen many gross mutations over the years. Most were so unattractive that the temptation to develop was easily overcome. Only one, a navy blue color form of Julidochromis dickfeldi, is in our hatchery today. It is a recessive trait but one that apparently also exists in the wild.