PlanetCatfish.com

I also agree with Sid, in fact I'll go one further- I absolutely loathe and detest the profusion of selectively bred (non-hybrid) varities of fish that abound in the hobby today. I remember as a teenager marvelling at the beauty of discus, but the current trend for pigeon-blood and other monstrous varieities has me agape- to me they're not only "not real" fish, they're downright ugly, and it has me aghast that I seem to be in a minority of one. I even prefer wild-coloured goldfish and carp, although I'll concede that people want to see fish in their ponds so there's some sense to having brighter coloured varieties in this case.

You know Sid, I don't think I agree with you. I think hybrids are OK especially if they are sold as such and they key point is that they are not deformed. But other than that then fine. Why? Well, exactly how many wild caught Synodontis enter the trade and die without passing on their genes? Close on 100%. How many species overall are still natural in your average LFS? Very few.

If we can remove the usual counter culture preamble, then we need to focus on the ethics, and the ethics of all fishkeepers and not just us specialists sitting in our ivory towers. Think about the entire fish buying public, not just people that can tell 40+ more species of Synodontis apart.

If every Syno in every chain store fish department is a hybrid then I, for one, am happy as they will keep those fishkeepers content and not impact wild stocks. There is also very little risk of these hybrids being released back into nature.

As to pushing up prices, I have seen zero evidence of this in the UK (and I was in a good LFS recently which had 4 or 5 different hybrids for sale). Is that happening with you?

Jools

Jools wrote:If every Syno in every chain store fish department is a hybrid then I, for one, am happy as they will keep those fishkeepers content and not impact wild stocks. There is also very little risk of these hybrids being released back into nature.

Hi Jools-
but why can't breeders raise captive bred true species? I much prefer buying tank-raised fish to wild fish, but would much prefer these to be true species. It's been suggested that hybrids have better survival rates than true species, but I don't know if it's ever been proven (or even properly tested).

Actually, they do as well - however, outside "bread and butter sales", they don't sell as well as they are about the same price but not wild caught. All that said, I reckon there will be an economics factor in it too which determines which species are used. You might need to use a more prolific, duller species with a less prolific, more attractive species to get the most pretty fishes.

Jools

Hi,

Jools wrote:I think hybrids are OK especially if they are sold as such

that´s the problem. Mostly the hybrids will sold as rare species. The wholesalers recieve the fishes with wrong name... also the seller and the customer...
The result is a new user for planetcatfish.com with one or two postings in "What is my catfish?".

Sold as Synodontis njassae:




An other one:



Sold as Synodontis zebrinus and Synodontis ornatipinnis:




Youngsters sold as Synodontis robertsi:



All fishes created in Czech Republic. The last one come from Czech to the wholesaler in the Netherlands and finaly was sold in Austria, Vienna.

That´s fraud and make me angry!

Jools wrote:If every Syno in every chain store fish department is a hybrid then I, for one, am happy as they will keep those fishkeepers content and not impact wild stocks.

I think there is a lot of value in a sustainable wild fish trade. It places a value on managing fish stocks, and keeping the local ecosystems intact.

I would rather a Congolese fisherman had my money for a quality wild caught specimen, than a lab-created hybrid.

racoll wrote:I think there is a lot of value in a sustainable wild fish trade. It places a value on managing fish stocks, and keeping the local ecosystems intact.

I would rather a Congolese fisherman had my money for a quality wild caught specimen, than a lab-created hybrid.

Without taking anything away from Jools argument, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

After speaking with for example Shane Linder and Mark Sabaj on the subject of "is ornamental trade a problem for the fish in their native rivers", and the opinion is pretty clearly that with a few exceptions, the fish are much more threatened by other factors than ornamental trade.

To some extent, I actually prefer to get wild-caught fish over tank-bred fish - it gives the local population SOME income, which may stop them from getting money by digging for gold or chopping down trees to make some small amounts of money. It's not a guarantee, but it is certainly better than giving the money to a dishonest breeder in Eastern Europe (or elsewhere).

What I absolutely agree with is that selling Hybrids as valid species is definitely fraud and morally wrong. There may well be an argument for selling hybrids under correct labels - but we do not see that very often...

--
Mats

Sidguppy wrote:I'll tell you what's next: L numbers and Corydoras

I think if we don't nip this in the bud now, then there will be no end to the mass produced hybrid crap that will appear in the shops.

Unfortunately, as Jools points out, the general fish buying public don't know or care. They just want the cheapest, most garish coloured fish as possible.

Despite spending many times more money per head than your "average" fishkeeper, they outnumber the serious hobbyists 100-1.

The market will just shift to whatever is more eye catching at the lowest prices, and the shops selling quality stock will be fewer and further between!

I can only see if being bad for the hobby long term as more and more people will be keeping fishes, not because they are interested in natural history, but for decoration.

Jools wrote:You know Sid, I don't think I agree with you. I think hybrids are OK especially if they are sold as such and they key point is that they are not deformed. But other than that then fine. Why? Well, exactly how many wild caught Synodontis enter the trade and die without passing on their genes? Close on 100%. How many species overall are still natural in your average LFS? Very few.

If we can remove the usual counter culture preamble, then we need to focus on the ethics, and the ethics of all fishkeepers and not just us specialists sitting in our ivory towers. Think about the entire fish buying public, not just people that can tell 40+ more species of Synodontis apart.

If every Syno in every chain store fish department is a hybrid then I, for one, am happy as they will keep those fishkeepers content and not impact wild stocks. There is also very little risk of these hybrids being released back into nature.

As to pushing up prices, I have seen zero evidence of this in the UK (and I was in a good LFS recently which had 4 or 5 different hybrids for sale). Is that happening with you?

Jools

I can see what you are saying, I can't say I really agree, but I do miss 1 thing.

Nature dislikes hybrids - therefore, with many species it is not easy to produce hybrids unless weird measurements are taken.

In relation to Synodontis I'm thinkiing of hormone injections, and manually bring the fishes to releasing eggs and sperm. This is a treatment not many fish survive

I think, apart from all dislike I have for hybrids, that this aspect - assuming I'm right, in this case I'd like to be wrong - should not be ignored

How many of you have actually been in an "entry level" fish dept of a chain store recently? Given all the arguments you've put forward, 90% of the fish for sale there would fall foul of one of the points you mention. What makes Synodontis special?

The other point is Rupert's point on sustainable harvesting of wild caught fish for the trade. That's fine, but we are talking about Africa here, not South America or India or suchlike. The rules are very different. Personally, I think this is the key to controlling or eradicating hybrids, if exports were as frequent and as varied as in their hayday, then why would hybrids have the commercial edge?

Jools

Lots of good points both for and against being made here. Jools' point that hybrids lessen the impact on wild populations is true, and I think a positive point in their favor. On the other hand, look how much success with the captive spawning of catfishes hobbyists have had in the last 20 years. More species (and families) have been bred in the last 20 years than the entire history of the hobby 1890-1990. Seegers lists captive spawning for 10 species, and I know of at least one more. Nearly all of these have been in the last 10 years. If the pleco craze had not caught on a resulted in a deluge of wild caught new species would there be so many hobbyists that had spawned 10, 20, or even over 100 spp?

I think if we don't nip this in the bud now, then there will be no end to the mass produced hybrid crap that will appear in the shops.

Sadly, I think we are well down that road.

Mostly the hybrids will sold as rare species.

Too true. Even more sad is that some will be described as valid species. Take a look at S. galinae and S. helenae. Granted these two are pretty easy to recognize as hybrids, but crosses described in the future may not be.

that's capitalism for you

Sid, I love your conviction but you have to see the irony that while you deplore Capitalism you are calling on a Capitalistic solution: a boycott. Also, lets not forget that it is no accident that these hybrids originated under Communist governments because the free flow of goods and services (in this case fishes) was not allowed.

-Shane

Jools wrote:How many of you have actually been in an "entry level" fish dept of a chain store recently? Given all the arguments you've put forward, 90% of the fish for sale there would fall foul of one of the points you mention.

You're absolutely right Jools, but that doesn't make it okay.

If I'm helping a beginner, the last fishes I recommend are those mass produced bread and butter ones, which are specifically sold to beginners in those shops!

The only way I can guarantee quality live stock is by going wild caught! The mass produced fishes such as guppies, neons and dwarf gouramis are simply awful. Aesthetics aside, they are so weak and inbred I would consider them to be actually quite difficult to keep for any length of time.

A case in point number one - I'm currently breeding Danio for my research, and I spawned Danio albolineatus (aquarium strain) at the same time as some wild caught Danio sp. aff. kyathit. The difference in growth and survival rate between the two groups was staggering.

Case in point number two - In my office nano tank, I am successfully keeping both wild caught Boraras maculatus and Otocinclus cf. vittatus, both regarded by most as delicate - they are thriving. I also added a small number of mass produced, and generally regarded as hardy, sparkling gouramis (Trichopsis pumila) - they didn't last one week.

Anyway, my point being, that how are newcomers to the hobby supposed to be successful and progress, unless there is a monumental change in how the market operates?

I don't think hybrids are a solution to this.

I can't count the number of guppies that we've bought (usually on my wife's insistence) [well, if I had saved them all in a bag in the freezer, I probably could count them - they aren't THAT many]. They never survive, and I've stopped buying them altogether.

--
Mats

I can`t see that the production of hybrids has any relevance to the conservation and management of the Afrikan biotopes. For serious catfish keepers the hybrid's are a nuisance because we have trouble finding the species we wan`t. The solution is of course to get wild caught specimens and breed and share them amongst ourselves. This will have no impact what so ever on wild populations. There are plenty of synos for our needs (although they are a pain to acquire). If habitats are managed badly or completely destroyed our serious breeding efforts will not make any difference for wild populations.

The world is on fire, but not because of the Eastern European fish farming.

I think it's a pity nobody went into my point of the well being (as far as I know they die) of synodontus parents used to hybridize

But than, it turned out to be the last posting on page 1

Bas said:

In relation to Synodontis I'm thinkiing of hormone injections, and manually bring the fishes to releasing eggs and sperm. This is a treatment not many fish survive

I think, apart from all dislike I have for hybrids, that this aspect - assuming I'm right, in this case I'd like to be wrong - should not be ignored

I agree totally, to me this is the most horrific, well one of the worst parts of it all. I have seen them doing this on tele to other types of fish and it looks horrifically painful and like they probably die from being squished after. Is this what they do to get all hybrid synos? And do they all die after?

Are they trying to find a new colour or something? What is wrong with just the natural synos to the hybridizers?

Jools' point that hybrids lessen the impact on wild populations is true, and I think a positive point in their favor.

this is a non argument and it's also wrong.

what WOULD lessen the impact on wild populations is the captive breeding of the real species.
with or without hormones. UNMIXED.

now the demand for real species will stay, because many fishkeepers are aware of the hybrid issue and want true species, not Eastern European filth.

second; these hybrids aren't created to lessen any impact on wild poulations, but to earn money and also-as we have seen in this section when a hybrid creater joined in- out of 'boredom'.


third: the impact on wild populations aren't caused by our hobby, but by habitat destruction.
causes; overpopulation, deforestation, damming, pollution, war, overfishing and poaching.
frankly said: Africa is a mess. regardless of whó has caused it; today it's a mess.

even if we decide to stick to hybrid keeping and forego the keeping of real syno's; the rate of extinction of wild African fish qon't slowdown one tiny bit.

it's not us or our demand wich eventually will cause the extenction of -say for example- Synodontis flavitaeniatus or synodontis alberti etc.

it's gonna be massive breeding of people, wars, famine, habitat destruction and global warming and it's effect on the growing deserts in Africa that will do these fishes in.


i don't like the idea of breeding fish by sticking needles in em; but as long as we keep them unmixed I don't have too many objections
especially if that fish is a threathened species!
it's the wanton mixing that iDO object to. a LOT.

because if you breed fish with needles and hormones, you CAN also breed them true.
the fact that those people don't bother tells me much and 1 thing above all: they have no ethics. no morals.
they could do it right, but they won't. out of boredom or greed. but it's there.

and that hasn''t got anything to do with lessening any impact on anything whatsoever.

sidguppy wrote:if you breed fish with needles and hormones, you CAN also breed them true.
the fact that those people don't bother tells me much and 1 thing above all: they have no ethics. no morals.
they could do it right, but they won't. out of boredom or greed. but it's there.

and that hasn''t got anything to do with lessening any impact on anything whatsoever.

I have to agree with this- I've not seen any info for over a year on loaches, but there was a Russian aquarist getting lots of publicity for producing hybrid loaches recently, because he thought they'd be worth more than producing true species.

what WOULD lessen the impact on wild populations is the captive breeding of the real species.

You are correct that hybrids were certainly not created with any thought of lessening man's impact on wild populations. That said, it is a positive side effect even if it was unintended.

What would really lessen impact would be expanded wild collecting. This would bring cash to local people and give them a reason to protect their environment. This is the only form of conservation I have seen to work in the undeveloped world. Uganda's gorillas and their small habitat are now protected, and actually guarded, because they bring in more money from first world tourists (US $400 a day just for a permit to see them) than they would as meat for the stew pot. Is the protection of these animals not a good thing because the government uses it as a cash cow? I do not think so. If a local village is making a living exporting live tropical fishes they will fight to protect that income. The converse side is that of course one could argue that buying captive bred fishes actually has a long term negative impact on their wild kin.

Sadly, I do not know of any organization out there that is helping local peoples to develop their ornamental fish resources.

Africa is a mess. regardless of whó has caused it; today it's a mess.

Well, I guess that depends on how you define mess. As you know I have been in Africa for going on four years now and myself and my family are rather happy here. My wife and I have now been living in the 3rd world for over ten years now. Every time we visit the developed world we are more disappointed by "progress."

I am suprised that there has been no reaction to the fact that at least two of these hybrids have been scientifically described!
-Shane

Shane wrote:Sadly, I do not know of any organization out there that is helping local peoples to develop their ornamental fish resources.

Like a "Fairtrade fish" project? I'm sure it's not easy to do that, but it's certainly something in the right direction.

And as I've said before, capture for the ornamental trade is by far the least problem for most of the fish we keep in our tanks - making them valuable to the local population is definitely a good thing.

--
Mats

sidguppy wrote:

Jools' point that hybrids lessen the impact on wild populations is true, and I think a positive point in their favor.

this is a non argument and it's also wrong.

Why? Based on what direct experience please?

Jools

sidguppy wrote:because if you breed fish with needles and hormones, you CAN also breed them true.
the fact that those people don't bother tells me much and 1 thing above all: they have no ethics. no morals.
they could do it right, but they won't. out of boredom or greed. but it's there.

Now that is wrong, it is done "right" as you put it - and has been for some time. Where do you think several bread and butter species come from? I've seen this with my own eyes. I've talked to the breeders. I've read NACG reports from the 1980s of talks given by Czech breeders in the UK. Hormone bred Synos fuelled the market then alongside what many consider to be the heydey of the genus in the hobby. I must go and look through my old CAGB stuff. Allan James @ Scotcat was there - I'll need to get some details too. Also, I've had Florida based Syno fish farm breeder fish in the catelog for nearly a decade! They've been supplying the US with things like S. ocellifer since Kojak was on TV.

It's my personal view that the lessening of w/c African shipments has lead to the rise of hyrids to fill the pretty fish gap. Once again I point out that we are a TINY minority of the syno buying public. It's in our remit to not buy these things, but how do you "educate the masses" without appearing like a dictator?

I have four of the S. granulosus hybrids bought out of interest and they are turning into nice fish to have. I paid £4 each for them and they look quite like the real deal. They are healthy and well shaped fish. So, yes or no, have I done a bad thing?

On the other point, if you're trying to tell me that if they discovered the zebra pleco in the Congo then it would safeguard the species, the river and the people that live in the area, then I can't really say I agree with you. Some fish can be too attractive and some of the Congolese fish are very nice indeed. This point is opinion however, it's hard to see what might happen in that regard, so happy to concede that point on the "fairtrade" basis.



Jools

Personally, I don't think you did reply to the quoted part from Sidguppy, Jools.

He wrote that if one can produce hybrids with hormones, one can also produce the real species, and than he gave an opinion about the production of the hybrids

You reply by pointing out that cheep fishes have their own market - obviously true, but if one can produce cheap hybrids, one can produce cheep afspring as well, or do I miss something? I do realize for real offspring one wil lneed 2 expensive parents, and for hybrids only 1 - so a 5 pound fish would cost 10 pound if a real species. Still cheap

Than you point out that lack of new iomports resulted in market for the hybrids. Obviously true, but as pointed out, it is not really an answer to Sids points

I do agree, Jools, that if a very fancy fish were discovered in Africa (or elsewhere for that matter) the fish would not really safeguard anything, most likely it would become extinct in the wild in no-time, unless some firm export regulations were made quickly enough. The problem is, as we know, many developing countries would be far to late with such regulations

But, going back to real Synodontis, I think that if the market for hybrids were taken over by imports from Africa, not much harm would be done to any wild population - while the local people would be able te earn a living - perhaps better said, enabling them a lunch, once a week

My opinions about hybrid Synodontis are not completely as negative as some other hybrids - such as cich lids or life bearers, but I'm certainly not positive. I do have, however, much problems with the hormone based breeding methods, but i think we all have them

Bas Pels wrote:Personally, I don't think you did reply to the quoted part from Sidguppy, Jools.

SG stated that fish breeders were not artificially reproducing species, but only hybrids, and that bit I quoted as, per my reply, it's not correct. They've been doing that for years before the hybrid thing.

Bas Pels wrote:Than you point out that lack of new imports resulted in market for the hybrids. Obviously true, but as pointed out, it is not really an answer to Sids points

It wasn't intended as an answer, I'd done that in the first paragraph and had moved on. I do appear to be in the minority here, but I really get the feeling you chaps are all a bit out of touch with the chain store fish buying public. I am also aware we've totally hijacked Richards great thread about informing the buying public about what is a hybrid and what is not. Sorry Richard, but it appears we have a live one!

I am not a fan or putting a fishes brains into a blender to allow thousands of fishes to be produced, but my point is that ethically and morally I see this as slightly better than taking 1000 fish out of the wild and then flying them all over the world to die without reproducing in the aquarium. I accept and include in that opinion that of the 1000 fish in the wild, many will not survive to adulthood. Now, if you don't agree, then convince me, I'm not the kind of guy that won't have his view changed by reason. However, stereotypical counter culture mantra will not work!

My second point is what exactly is the ethical difference between buying a hybrid syno and any other commonly hybridised fish? A common goldfish is maybe one species. But the new discus varieties? Moss green tiger barbs? Siamese fighters? Many people think these, and also Corydoras aeneus, are all such hybrids. The only difference with the Synos is that they are new, and that they are being discussed in a forum of catfish fans who as a group, really love their fish natural. Is the difference just, and only, that that hormones were used?

My third and final point is that we all have different levels at which we draw the line. Mine is drawn where the physical characteristics of the fish are impaired. I'm OK with some longer finned angelfish, but not with veiltail oscars for example. Bubble eye goldfish I really don't like along with the recent trend for balloon fish (which is really just the same as the centuries old goldfish varieties). Some of the hybrid Synos you see are deformed and that I think is a poor "product".

Jools

Jools wrote: I am also aware we've totally hijacked Richards great thread about informing the buying public about what is a hybrid and what is not. Sorry Richard, but it appears we have a live one! Jools

No worries from me (& it is your site after all )

I have no qualms about how the thread develops as the purpose is to educate - hence pictures of hybrid species (which will continue - thanks for all the pics so far people), opinions on why it is acceptable or not, what is involved in the process, what the risks are to wild stocks & tankbred bloodlines, why people feel aggrieved for paying top dollar for a rare fish only to find they have a "fake" etc etc

Regulars will know i am against the production of hybrid synos, & balloon fish & the truly monstrous abnormalities (like pang x RTC, Niger x TSN), dyed fish etc. What i want is for the information about every aspect of this to be available, so people understand what actually goes on & can make their choices based on all the facts - i think we're generating this with perhaps a portion of additional info & personal opinion which is no bad thing but regardless of my (or anyone else's personal opinions), things'll always end up with everyone making their own choices.

Jools wrote:No worries from me (& it is your site after all )

It is my site. And to quote another JD, "I am the law". But then, as anyone who knows me will hopefully agree, I'm not the little dictator. I've also been wrong enough times to have gotten over myself.

However, I really, really, really, do think we forget about "Joe Aquarist" walking into the chain stores. If there's something to do here, it's to educate the buyers and I'm totally behind that (hence why we ran HH's initial hybrid Syno article) and also why I've taken a real interest in this topic.

Jools

Jools wrote:And to quote another JD, "I am the law". But then, as anyone who knows me will hopefully agree, I'm not the little dictator. I've also been wrong enough times to have gotten over myself.

Surely no accusation of this?

Jools wrote: However, I really, really, really, do think we forget about "Joe Aquarist" walking into the chain stores. If there's something to do here, it's to educate the buyers and I'm totally behind that (hence why we ran HH's initial hybrid Syno article) and also why I've taken a real interest in this topic. Jools

I do agree that some of us who have spent time, learned a bit of specialist info & focussed our efforts in a particular area do not fully appreciate Joe/Jane Average or new fishkeeper - hence the attempt to educate

Richard B wrote:Surely no accusation of this?

None, however my point was that hopefully nobody _needed_ to accuse me.

Jools

However, I really, really, really, do think we forget about "Joe Aquarist" walking into the chain stores.

No we should not and you are correct for pointing out that this perspective should be taken in to account. I think many of us, and certainly most if not all that are replying to this thread, long ago stopped defining themselves as aquarium hobbyists. That said, we will be the ones that will educate "Joe" as we are the ones writing for both the print and digital media.

The catfish aquarist is still a new "species" in the hobby and our "culture" has not been defined yet as it has for killie folks, livebearer specialists, cichlidiots, reefers, etc. Don't get me wrong, there have always been a few catfish nuts spread about but never enough to form a recognized group and define their aspect of the hobby. There are no catfish groups with the membership numbers nor publications we see in these other groups. Our reaction to topics like this will define it. I really hope we come down closer to the killie people than the goldfish folks.
-Shane

Bas Pels wrote:I think it's a pity nobody went into my point of the well being (as far as I know they die) of synodontus parents used to hybridize

Hi Bas-
are we sure this is the case? I personally don't know, so you could be correct, but it would surprise me. In the UK, our Environment Agency holds native (and a few non-native) species in fish farms (barbel, tench, bream, gudgeon and carp are/were definitely produced at Calverton Fish Farm), and hand-strip them to release eggs and sperm, then growing the eggs/fry on to release into rivers or sell to private fisheries. As far as I know, this is usually non-lethal to the adult fish, although there will presumably be some mortality rate- I'd expect small, delicate species like bleak to have higher mortality rates than carp, for example. I've also caught (whilst angling) male carp that were dripping milt, and female crucian carp that were releasing eggs (and I consider myself to be pretty competent at handling fish, so I wasn't squeezing them!), so I wouldn't expect stripping fish to require considerable force.

Two factors to consider are that a) the fish farm method doesn't require hormone injection and b) these are cyprinids rather than mochokids. I'm guessing they use either salmon or carp hormones- I don't know how stressful that is to the fish, but it presumably occurs some time before they're actually stripped of eggs/milt so isn't immediately fatal in itself. Synos are also notoriously hardy so I would expected them to put up with handling at least as well as similar-sized cyprinids.

I stress I have no info on the hybrid-breeding process so there might be some "common knowledge" I've not seen. Is there something I've missed? Is there a reason why this process is definitely fatal to synos?