Breeding in a better way.

[Azhael]

Hello all. There has been a thread in a spanish forum about the issues that endogamy and a generally bad breeding schedule are causing to our animals. Of course the thread, although full of good information, has turned into a war between interests...
However, something good has come from it, the reality of our breedings methods being unideal and having consequences. My intention is not to fingerpoint or to blame anyone, specially because the roots of the problem are shared by the majority of us. My aim is only to raise conscience about the reality that things can be done better.
Aside from our animals being "nominal" or "phases", we are not really doing our best to breed them sustainibly. The problem is much more apparent, due to obvious reasons, to the side of the hobby that deals with morphs or phases, but affects the vast majority of our captive stock. We have this idea that caudates can sustain endogamy for a few generations without ill effects, which is interesting and definitely relevant, but it has caused the majority of our side of the hobby to breed with groups of siblings or closely related animals. This is by far the norm among all breeders of caudates. Most of us have breeding groups made of siblings, and in many cases those come from groups made of siblings aswell, and so on. While the effects are yet minor on our side of the hobby, i´m pretty sure it is because we are relatively "new" and not that many caudate species have been bred for large numbers of generations yet. Curiously enough, in those who have, we are observing negative effects. The axolotls are once more a great, yet sad, example of what reckless and badly organized breeding can do to a species.
I think we really, really need to work on that. We need to start introducing fresh blood more regularly in our breeding groups. I know many people already do this, but it´s of very little relevance if the rest keep breeding their animals without looking at the future consequences. We have examples in this forum of users who make a big effort in maintaining the integrity of their animal´s genetics even to the point of locality while breeding responsibly. So we know, it can be done.
The consequences of this " blind breeding" are not a joke. For the individual animal, not respecting the requirement for genetic flow, can lead to its bloodline carrying genes that have a negative effect on its life quality. We really do underestimate the effects that endogamy and lack of genetic variability have. For us it causes problems too. Animals with deformities, lethal genes, sterility...all are problems that already affect many bloodlines of caudates in captivity. In other words, it´s affecting our pets and their future generations.
But perhaps the most significant damage is done to the species. The fact that our captive stock is largely being bred badly, and that many species have had virtually no affluence of wild blood in their gene pool for years, means that many of our species are, from a genetic point of view, completely worthless. It´s true that reintroductions which are already a last resort, very rarely ever use animals from the hobby. Mind you, it does happen. In extreme cases where there is literally no other option, animals from hobbyists have been used for reintroductions (i can offer the example of the fartet, Aphanius iberus, although it may not be relevant for many people...). Now, if we changed the way the captive stock is managed, and start breeding responsibly, not only we would guarantee better genetics to our animals and their future generations, but we would also guarantee a portion of the captive stock which would remain "pure" enough to be of service to the species, if push comes to shove. It may be a remote possibility, but it´s a very significant one. I for one believe that it´s our responsibility to protect wild populations. A very good way to do so is to make sure that our animals remain healthy and genetically varied, just as the wild populations are.
I think it´s worth mentioning that even in projects like the very commendable stud-books, many of the breeding groups used are closely related. So even when we are doing our best, we are not really doing it entirely well. Please understand that this is no attack against stud-books which i respect (very much indeed), but just an example of how far our costume to use groups of siblings reaches.
I would like to end (sorry for the long speech, i get caught in the moment xD) by saying that i know it´s not as easy as it sounds. It requires an effort. I myself have been breeding in a way that is not the best for our animals, but i do intend to correct my methods in the future (not that this is something new, i´ve working on this). If we all start considering the current situation and collectively make improvements we, and very specially our animals, will benefit from it greatly.
Anyway, just food for thought xD I think it´s an issue that deserves being thought about. The way we breed our animals matters.

 

[Joost]

I totaly agree with you, but I'm affraid it's almost impossible for rarer species which haven't been imported in huge amounts.
For example: L. laoensis specimens have been bred for some years now, but most of them came from a small imported group. In a few years they all will be related to each other.
For C.(H.) orientalis, which is imported in very large numbers for many years (and still on) this problem won't happen in the next 200? years.

Also for animals with a known locality this probably will end up on a dead end. For example: I do have several groups of C. pyrrhogaster with locality data, and some of those groups are the only wildcaught group in a personal collection (not only with me offcourse). All offspring will be related.

 

[Azhael]

I see the problems, Joost, i´m aware it is very difficult in certain cases, which is sad.
In the case of L.laoensis we might get lucky and see new bloodlines being bred in the future, before the captive stock goes through many generations. So far we are starting on F2, so there´s plenty of time.
Once new breedings are achieved, the bloodlines could be mixed, and i think they should.
The problem is even bigger with the case you mention about C.pyrrhogaster. If there is only one prooved group from a particular locality in captivity then the only hope si to be able to make new (controlled, well studied, properly done) captures from that same locality. If done correctly it would cause no impact, and the benefits would be great. Then new blood would be available and properly orchestrated mixes could result in great variability among the new stock. I do realize this is basically whisful thinking, but we have to start somewhere xD

The case of H.orientalis is certainly of least concern since very few people have even reached F2 with their animals. The strength of blood of the majoritarily WC origin animals in captivity ensures that. There are other species which are imported in much smaller numbers that would benefit from action right away.

And really i do know that there is not going to be any Revolution that will change everything tomorrow. But hey, we are a rare, and passionate breed of hobbyists. Let´s face it, we are the weird guys that LOVE newts. We don´t just like them, we are nuts for them! Sure we can use that passion to try and better the lives of our animals in yet another way. This forum is all about people learning and sharing information so that their habilities to keep and breed their animals will continuously improve. An important part of all that is how to breed our animals, and we have been a bit oblivious of that aspect. I´m sure we can make it another essential part of the knowledge that is passed on through this site.

 

[Bellabelloo]

I have been fretting about this as my Triturus marmoratus are all related ...as in siblings. Instincts tell me it is wrong to let them breed, and while I am keen to see eggs , I am unsure whether it would be wise to raise them . The same will apply to my Salamandra salamandra terrestris, when they reach maturity . I am wanting to add more adults to my group ( or even exchange) but I wonder if any future additions may be from the same blood line. I feel to achieve this I need to look to Europe, and there lies the possibility that I might receive wild caught. I do want to breed strong healthy marmoratus.
When we advertise animals for sale, maybe we should state where the parents came from...we should be more aware of our animals family history. This of course leave the morals to the buyer, but maybe this is a start.
I apologise for the rambling, I am not good at getting things across.

 

[Ken Worthington]

A very interesting point, Azhael, thanks.
This could be a very interesting thread......:happy:

When we advertise animals for sale, maybe we should state where the parents came from...we should be more aware of our animals family history.

I think that's a great idea, Julia, and I hope that it is implemented in the For-Sale section of the forum. Actually, I think it should be mandatory to include these details if advertising in the For-Sale section.
After all, as forum-users, we have to state our own nationality/country of residence.

PS. I have a pair of CB unrelated C orientalis adults, which came from 'Morg'.
I'm very pleased to announce the 'patter of tiny gills' rofl ....... I've counted around eight newly hatched little fellas so far, with more on the way!
What a start to the new year :happy:

 

[Azhael]

Julia, if you choose a decent european breeder you won´t have any problems with WC animals. In fact, i´d suspect the problem to be more accentuated in the UK since until very recently illegally WC T.marmoratus became legal upon arriving to the UK, and they were commonly sold at petshops.I think it´s wonderful that you feel that way, Julia, i agree there is a basic instinct that tells us that endogamy is definitely not good.
A little bit of effort is all it´s necessary for some improvement to take place. Changing the current situation into the ideal utopia of excellent genealogy is basically asking for a miracle xD so i think it´s easier to just forget about that and start out simple. If you have a breeding group made of siblings and your intention is to breed regularly, you´d do very well in considering introducing at the very least blood for one more line. If you intend to acquire a new breeding group in a near future, it´s your chance to make a little extra effort in the initial purchasing and acquire animals from a variety of sources to achieve a breeding group made up of not directly related animals. It is much, much easier to simply buy 5 animals from the same guy, raise them and get breeding...it´s what we´ve been doing for ages. But if you start breeding with a group that is not related, or that at least contains two different bloodlines, you´d be producing much better offspring, much healthier and resistant, and quite important too, much more "genuine".

I find that one of the big problems right now is that those of us who have breeding groups made up of siblings have a very hard time introducing new blood, because it means exchanging animals that one has grown attached to. After all most of us can´t simply add new animals to the existing group, there is no space for such large breeding groups in the average hobbyist´s den. That´s why i think the ideal moment in which to consider this issues and do something about them is when acquiring new groups. For those already existing ones, not all is lost. After all for the majority of species, most bloodlines have only been isolated for a small number of generations, and as has been said, caudates are relatively tolerant of endogamy. So we would still be producing endogamous generations, but if these offspring are then mixed back with other existing bloodlines in captivity even if they too are endogamous, the result would be an improvement. After a few generations much good could be done.
A big problem comes with bloodlines that have absolutely no identification, either of their locality of origin or even subspecies. Those bloodlines should ideally be progressively removed from our stock and replaced with bloodlines from which we have information. It´s kind of tough...but it would certainly be benefitial. Those animals would be perfectly ok for the hobbyist that wants a pet, but those who intend to breed should definitely avoid bloodlines that are not properly identified.

That´s another point in which we can improve. Information. I fully agree with you on this, Julia. If we start keeping track of our animal´s breedings, keep a genealogy, and inform future buyers of which generation the animals are, which bloodlines they come from, what is the origin of the F1, etc, we would be creating the basis for future responsible breedings. The real problem is not knowing any of that which is by large the norm. If you don´t know where your animals come from or which generation they are from which bloodline, when the time to breed comes you´ll simply get them breeding amongst themselves or mix two random lines that turn out to be closely related anyway. I really think the first step to responsible breeding is to follow the example of the studbooks. By keeping track of what we do with our animals and disclosing that information to others, creating healthy breeding groups would be much easier (although it would still require effort, but hey, it´s your newts we are talking about! They deserve it).

Those of you who have a bit of a social network amongst local keepers ( i know there are some cases) have it easy. By keeping communal track of what you have and what you produce, it would be easy to create future responsible mixes. This would also be a good concept to reinforce in meetings like the upcoming FrogDay and such.

 

[Molch]

on the other hand, wild populations may be inbred as well. Many caudates (E.g, N. kaiseri, species living in caves) live in small populations isolated from each other. Those habitats may be rest habitats of a once wider distribution where now all remaining survivors are closely related.

In other cases, a few animals may colonize a new habitat and then remain somewhat isolated, and all subsequent generations are decendents of those first few.

I agree we should breed for genetic diversity as much as possible; on the other hand, we don't really have a clear idea how damaging inbreeding is, how it compares to wild populations, and what exactly it does in the long run.

another thing to consider is that whether we breed for genetic diversity or whether we inbreed our newts, in any case we have removed the element of natural selection that in nature would weed out the vast majority of offspring. So in either case we are likely to produce genetically somewhat inferior offspring than wild animals. If ever released into the wild, a multiple-generation CB animal may therefore no longer be able to cope with natural habitats and pathogens.

 

[RobM]

on the other hand, wild populations may be inbred as well. Many caudates (E.g, N. kaiseri, species living in caves) live in small populations isolated from each other. Those habitats may be rest habitats of a once wider distribution where now all remaining survivors are closely related.

Another thing to consider is that whether we breed for genetic diversity or whether we inbreed our newts, in any case we have removed the element of natural selection that in nature would weed out the vast majority of offspring. So in either case we are likely to produce genetically somewhat inferior offspring than wild animals. If ever released into the wild, a multiple-generation CB animal may therefore no longer be able to cope with natural habitats and pathogens.

Thanks Molch, I was going to comment on these things too.
Inbreeding is bound to happen a lot in species that live in small locale pools, its sometimes not possible for individuals to move from one water body to another. It may be that certain species can therefore handle more inbreeding than others, for example stream dwelling newts may indeed be less inbreed and handle less inbreeding?

The only way to get around inbreeding and deteriorating "quality" of a species bred in captivity is to use selective breeding. Despite being difficult to do within the hobby, this can also be a dangerous thing, it still is not the same as natural selection, and we may still diverge hobby animals from their wild cousins.

 

[Bellabelloo]

Thanks Molch, I was going to comment on these things too.
Inbreeding is bound to happen a lot in species that live in small locale pools, its sometimes not possible for individuals to move from one water body to another. It may be that certain species can therefore handle more inbreeding than others, for example stream dwelling newts may indeed be less inbreed and handle less inbreeding?

The only way to get around inbreeding and deteriorating "quality" of a species bred in captivity is to use selective breeding. Despite being difficult to do within the hobby, this can also be a dangerous thing, it still is not the same as natural selection, and we may still diverge hobby animals from their wild cousins.

I was thinking about this. ( not used to all this thinking!) In the wild large numbers of eggs and larvae would not make it to a breeding age... ' survival of the fittest' . When we raise eggs the survival rate is considerably larger, we are potentially raising weaker animals as a consequence.

 

[eljorgo]

Joost, the Laoensis are still being imported heavily! The guy when i got my pair from had packs and packs of them! Buys them for the price of fish in the market cause they are actually present in food and fish markets in Laos, then re-selling them here its a payload someone would never want to let go. He had more than 20.20. at one point not many months ago. Of course this is not happy to hear or say but one way or the other its the truth we live.
At least if they go to very good hands, thats a enormous amount of different bloodlines we get in the hobby. I guess most of the hobby came directly from Paul_b. Like 50 to 60% of the people keeping laoensis!!

 

[Azhael]

While it´s true that many species have at least some populations that are seriously isolated, it doesn´t mean it´s the same as in captivity. If you have an isolated population of a given species, let´s say it´s made of 50 individuals. That´s 10 times more than the average breeding group. There may exist populations with very reduced amounts of breeding individuals, but this populations are going to see the effects of such reduced variability. It´s true that caudates are more tolerant to inbreeding than other groups of animals, but it doesn´t mean that inbreeding is without any effects. The effects can be very subtle, like for example reduced adaptability caused by low variability, which can lead to a whole population or bloodline to be wiped out by particular environmental changes or illnesses. That´s the real problem. If you inbreed, you are still going to get normal looking animals, for generations, but in the inside they´d be impoverished. They´d be much more incapable of adapting than wild populations. Granted, that´s barely a problem, generally speaking, when you live in captivity, but it can easily become a problem.

As i said, most wild populations, even very reduced ones, contain many more adults than just 5. In the case of cave dwellers, having reduced and relatively isolated numbers is not a problem because the conditions are extremely stable. For them, low variability and adaptbility are not a problem at all. However, for a species that inhabits a much more unstable habitat, adaptability is crucial.

I fully agree that captive breeding has a very unnatural component which is the survival of the existing and not of the fittest. This is a problem that can be reduced by eliminating any noticiable aberrants. Many breeders decide to breed only the strongest of any particular batch of eggs, even if that greatly reduces their final numbers. It´s obviously virtually impossible to recreate the process of natural selection in captivity, but it doesn´t mean we can´t apply some of the principles. In conjunction with a proper genealogy and the introduction of new blood every now and then, i think it is possible to keep a captive population as "wild" as possible. There will be some degree of domestication, i believe this is inevitable, but it don´t need be strong enough to affect the species in a significant manner (it will be if we let it...).
Just because they are living and reproducing in captivity, that is necesarily going to have some effects. I think what is being discussed in this thread is the means to limit this effect by trying to improve the way we breed, which not only includes avoiding excessive inbreeding, but also applying some degree of possitive selection to the offspring.

 

[Joost]

Joost, the Laoensis are still being imported heavily! The guy when i got my pair from had packs and packs of them!

Ah, OK, I didn't know this. I've never seen imports in the area around here. But it was more like an example.