FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Here is Mighty Thor bred by Indo farm.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a92/Jam420/MightyThorupdate2.jpg

This is another masterpiece. Name of this fish is Tasmania.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a92/Jam420/Tasmaniaupdate1s.jpg

Chingmixusa

these are not masterpeice flowerhorns!!!
im all for hybrids like flowerhorns but when they look like that i really dislike them. my grandpa has a 4-5 year old flowerhorn and he is much more attractive than thes.
these two are abnormally bunched up and bulky in the body.
i find the ones that have a more longer and thiner body profile and smaller "horn" as they look more natural and healthy.

I think they have nice colors, but I dont like the mutations as much. I guess I kind of agree with coop. But yours have great color.

Thanks for the comments.
As the saying goes, a masterpiece is all depending on the
eyes of the beholder. There is no right or wrong and for me
these are considered masterpieces. Thanks again for the comment.

ChingmixUSA

I too actually like the colour of flowerhorns, but im not especially keen on the faults that are being selectively bred into them. The superhumpy heads, spinal curvature and superstocky build all add up to increasing levels of ill health fragility, fat retention, lack of swimbladder room, organ compression etc. In the long run flowerhorns are destined to be no fitter than parrot cichlids if breeders keep enhancing those characteristics. A lot of breed standards that people try to enforce when it comes to characteristics are based on incredibly vain, rather retarded preconceptions of male stereotyping of an animal, we breed in characteristics that make flowerhorns appear more masculine, features that mother nature herself doesnt necessarily encourage. Ive seen conversations often where flowerhorns arent considered good unless they have a really huge hump and massive build, and seeing as how this isnt actually the standard of a good breeding male in any of the progenitor species, how can over the top humps be a good thing? Basically it isnt. Its just extra fat, extra weight, and its like comparing a wolf to a shar-pei. Form should follow function, and I see nothing of this in a superdeformed flowerhorn, more to the point its excessive, at its worst extremities cruel. Theyve taken a cue from nature, totally misunderstood it and hyperaccelerated it with no consideration for fish health.

What you dont see on show is just the same as parrot cichlids. High fry spoilage, many specimens that are so deformed they die or have to be euthanised , just to get show worthy specimens like those pictured. Its not good culture.

Its like alsation dogs with hip dysplasia, bulldogs that can hardly breathe and give birth with difficulty leading to ceasarian section as the primary option,, and goldfish like celestials and pearlscales, there has to be a sensible breed limit , and you can't rely on breeders or fans of the species to police that. People end up doing some really quite abusive things with selective breeding , often with no consideration for the health of the animal.

I guess a masterpiece is in the eye of the beholder. To me the earlier flowerhorns with less extreme characteristics were stronger, and actually prettier. Deformity makes for ugliness in my mind, and I wouldnt encourage it.

Some species of superdeformed selectively bred fish will be facing breeding bans under new animal welfare laws, and certain countries will no longer be allowed to offer them for sale, this will likely include flowerhorns too unless breeders back off on the promotion of extreme characteristics. Thankfully the law these days has begun to recognise the importance of breeding for health and the avoidance of characteristics that lead to ill health. Pretty soon we will see the kind of thing that the kennel club had to do about a decade ago, and coordinate breeders into reigning in their most excessive breeding practises for the health and longevity of any given breed in cooperation with legal agencies. It will be a good thing.

When that happens what is considered a masterpiece will have its standards changed forever, so that a smallish group of fans, obsessives, and breeders can have their eyes opened to the wider and more important issues, and not just purely on what traits they can breed into a fish.

Then masterpieces cannot be considered masterpieces until health is a factor, as well as genetic viability, and the quality of life for the animal. I'll be rather glad when that happens.

Masterpiece to some, borderline fish abuse to others. One thing is clear though, a lot of selective breeders need to have a clearer idea of animal welfare enforced on them occassionally. Its an old story,folks saying they dont abuse animals with breeding, then the medical proof comes in and their worst excesses curbed.

What I think is a shame is how long it takes the law to act, because in the meantime a whole culture of rather unenlightened deformity fans springs up, which is a great moral shame for them, and ultimately when their type of fish get banned, I assume its a bit of a disappointment for them.Its disappointing all round, and while a few will be unrepentant , a few will have to live with the realisation of some of their practises having been abusive.

I dont think I want to see flowerhorns as extreme as they are becoming, i'd rather they had more in common with the first few generations.A hybrid fish is usually a miskake, but often a livable one, but a further selective breeding effort on top of a hybridisation is playing god for our own amusement, and when playing god, one has to do it with a sense of responsibility or not at all.

Just like dog breeders I think a lot of fish breeders are going to have their worst excesses curbed and that is a good thing. It makes things clearer, and words like "masterpieces" altogether less subjective, or e to a skewed outlook.

They may be considered masterpieces for now, but when you see how the deformities are getting more extreme you have to ask yourself who in their right mind would consider such fish to be masterpieces, what their possible perspective might be, and if indeed you want to respect their opinion or have anything to do with them at all.

This is about as extreme as a flowerhorn ever need be.

http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac56883/flowerhorn1.jpg

Its big, longer in the body rather than short, has a normal functioning mouth, and the hump isnt so extreme as to cause weight distribution issues,and it wont have organ compression or spinal curvature. It has body flexibility, (the first two will swim like they have planks of wood strapped to their sides) , basically its a far superior fish. The previous two pictured look like cripples by comparison. Literally handicapped, they are like the hunchback of notre dame compared to an olymic athelete.

And all of them are poor compared to this

http://animal-world.com/encyclo/fresh/cichlid/images/RedDevilWFCi_U96.JPG

and this


http://www.cichlids.com/uploads/tx_usercichlids/02_fish_045.jpg

A flowerhorn is no masterpiece compared to a red devil, or a midas. Breeder standards are neither more important or more impressive than a standard fish in good health. Nature has its own perfection. I can take a little breeding for colour etc,and even that brings with it increased levels of cancer incidents, but to breed in deformity that will affect a fish's normal function is pretty retarded. Those examples you gave are little better than love heart parrots. Theyre not good fish by any meaningful standard. A breeders standard means nothing.I would go so far as to say the birth of those "masterpiece " specimens should never have even been permitted.

Thank you for your comment.

Best Regards,
Chingmixusa

Here are some other masterpieces flowerhorns.
Just sharing.

This is a golden based breeding from my friend.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/Vincentio/TITANUPDATE.jpg

This is from Japro breeds.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b252/nval95/IndoZZ1-2.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b252/nval95/IndoZZ3-2.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b252/nval95/IndoZZ6-1.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b252/nval95/IndoZZ7.jpg



ChingmixUSA

Well said LHG

Sorry Chingmixusa, but even if we disregard everything mentioned by LHG, I think it very wrong that these can be considered a masterpiece. It is like considering Frankenstein as the perfect human. I have never seen or heard of anything created by man that can even begin to compare to anything created by God or nature (depending on your beliefs). I think it is very conceited for any human to believe they can improve on nature.

Sorry but breeding in deformity can never be considered a masterpiece.

wow, why are people trying to turn this into another hybrid argument. "Masterpiece" is all relative, obviously Chingmix is a flowerhorn lover and he believes that these are quality fish, I wouldn't know but I personally like them. People will always have some different opinions but there doesen't have to be a discussion everytime a subject is mentioned. Relax

PS-humans have improved on nature throughout history and will likely continue to do so.

BTW Ching I actually like the pic u posted of your guy the best.

By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
Socrates-
I happen to have become a philosopher

Actually it wasn't a hybrid arguement, it was a selective breeding arguement specifically to do with the problems of inbreeding deformity to achieve a certain look at the expense of fish health.

Do you think how a fish is made to appear is more important than its basic right to health? Do you believe its only a question of liking something,in which case people can do pretty much whatever they want, or do we have more responsibility than that? Is breeding deformity that reduces functionality a good thing to do? Can it be considered a masterpiece in the true sense, or is it a hollow showing of ability in an area that is too morally corrupt to be a good thing to declare mastery of?

I would also question that we have improved much by selective breeding, we have certainly bred in traits that benefit us as regards commercial value, yeild etc, especially with livestock, but i'd be interested to know if we made anything actually better. In farming we have a need, even that sometimes is questioned, but for the sake of achieving nothing more than a certain look, do we really have such a right? Is there really a need great enough?

Does the word "choice" really apply when animal abuse may be in the offing, and if it is , shouldnt we care more?

Thats primarily why the whole "masterpiece" thing is open to opinion, and a little arguement. Have the flowerhorns as originally pictured been taken too far by people who care more about the ability to manipulate and make money more than caring in itself? Is it a question of human will dominates over the right of an animal to live healthily with a full range of normal ability. Is it truly acceptable?

Were talking about fashion and taste here, and in any context is that enough reason to create a fish strain born into the world with increasingly encouraged level of deformity?

If it is, where is the upper limit? Should the day come when fry spoilage is over 90%, culls of year old specimens too disgustingly deformed to be placed on sale, animals may live in literal pain and discomfort all of its life, and be so fragile as to keel over within a few degrees of temperature change, get swim bladder failure at the slightest overfeeding,no immune system, motility issues,communication issues and infertility, all to acheive a certain look, is that ok too?

Or should we find the maximum level of deformity possible to show how much weve learned and keep them exactly at that level, at the last stable point before death is so early sales become impossible?

Sounds extreme doesnt it, but I think most people wouldnt want to see a lot of what happens behind closed doors at the worst of the selective breeders. Dont forget, weve seen it before, mollies dying of cancer before age 2 years, black moors , orandas, celestials and pearlscales where some specimens are lucky to make a year,some are effectively blind, other e to infection, parrot cichlids with mouths so deformed that they can barely eat, others with fins so deformed they can barely swim. Is this how we like fishkeeping to be?

Discuss, please! I'll gladly take a back seat and see the consensus of opinion, no judgements made. Is a masterpiece a true masterpiece,or did we just devalue the term?

I am kinda with git on this one.. to me, those large bulge on their heads looks kinda crazy... but that's just my opinion of how they look. I am sure it's wonderful science to be able to breed various features into fish and all but my concern would be the health and discomfort issues that could arise. I love the smaller photos you posted Ching... I just hope that the selective breeders don't make the species worse or breed fish like what git's describing. That, in my mind is pretty horrific.

The word deformed is also subjective.
To my eyes, I dont see anything deformed with them.
If you actually see them in person, these masterpieces are very adorable.
They are also very cute and also reacts nicely. They can also be tamed
and you can pet them. Its actually a wonderful pet because for me it
makes me feel relaxed after a long days of stress, just having him there
for me and showing me how happy he is to see me.

I have a friend that has a flowerhorn that is already at 8 years of age.
To me its not deformed nor does it have any defects internally.

Its almost like saying, a girl that is big breasted is deformed compared to a girl
that has no breast and only a nipple.

ChingmixUSA

I know you are defending your fish and that you think that it isn't deformed but it is an issue that many flowerhorns are being overbred.
and a deformity is not subjective,

It is a major difference in the shape of the body a body part, or a body organ (internal or external) compared to the average shape for the part in question. -wikipedia

they are beautiful fish though but they will go downhill very rapidly if flowerhorns are further bred for those traits that longhairedgit mentioned.

-Vincent

I have seen midas with big heads.
just as big as some flowerhorns and also bigger.
Its a genetic trait, that does not make it deformed.

Those will also be selectively bred midas cichlids too, some are large yes, but the ones we see these days have nuchal humps 3 times the norm. Flowerhorns are far from the only fish bred selectively, in fact midas and devils often appeal to the flowerhorn crowd and vice versa. All these species are victim to similar levels of selective breeding. A nuchal hump might impress the females for a while, a large one shows size and power, but an over the top one allows the competition to beat you to a pulp. There is an optimum size for everything

This is more like someone breeding a race of women with superlarge breasts, not a comparison between kate winslet and kate moss. Backpain would abound. It is unquestionably a deformity. Look what happened to lola ferrari Some women also have superlarge breasts quite naturally and are effectively bedridden by them. I wouldnt want a fish in an equivalent position. Nature would normally select such individuals to die as they wouldnt compete in the ol' game of life, and a flowerhorn with motility issues and a hump so big it extends beyond the reach of its mouth would not do well competing for females. At every stage of the game, nature would be trying to eliminate that extreme nuchal development. There comes a time when an asset once overdone, becomes a handicap.These fish , subject to evolution would never be able to retain these characteristics, quite simply because they are a health and competition disadvantage. Big yes, bloody huge, no. The occurrance of freak mutations is normal, for the specimens to survive outside of a functional basis and make that mutation more severe and far more common is not. Theres not a damn natural thing about it.

TBH though im far more worried about the spinal curvature, body shortening and almost balloon build than the hump. The hump is just a saddo thing, for people who want their fish to look more male and tougher than the next one, which is presumably because the owners are less than gifted in that respect themselves, like people who put big spoilers and huge exhaust pipes on a 40bhp vauxhall nova. A fish can be a bit chavvy without it being ill I suppose, as long as the breeders show some reasonable restraint or they will end up looking like lionhead goldies with bits of cauliflower stuck to their faces and high cancer rates. dont forget that nuchal hump growth is triggered by male growth hormones, and if the fish is producing too much of that you get cancer and infertility, premature aging, and some organ failures. Being too male is not a good thing.Male/female hormones have to remain in an appropriate balance for the sex of the fish in order to retain longevity and health

The other deformities however, can be directly life threating and life quality destroying in a more immediate way.

As for how to breed flowerhorns like that, its barely science. Most a level students could figure it out without tutiledge, anyone with a remedial knowledge of dominant and recessive genes and a tank or two and a reasonable selection of specimens could start out their own selective breeding project with almost any fish. Even one of my work colleagues managed to stabilise a line of mickey mouse platies more or less by accident, she certainly knows nothing about genetics.. A lot of people do it without even knowing it. It takes time and patience sure, but there are people out there who bred chickens to have teeth, and scales. How impressive can a fish with a lumpy head and health problems be? If these fish are normal, so is having a fluorescent orange backside that glows in the presence of ice cream vans.

Love the ones you have, cherish them , see them through to the end of their days, and care for them well, but promoting all the extreme deformities leads to animal suffering. There is no real goal in the breeding ultimism that "masterpieces" like that inspire, only fish sickness, and the futile proof of an ability and a science that is easily attained and valueless unless harnessed for the development of mankind. This kind of selective breeding is a retrograde step that goes against everything people are striving for with animal health.

Im not saying that people shouldnt have flowerhorns or that they need be erased from existence, I only ask that people dont consider it a goal to turn a perfectly healthy strain of fish into a collection of cripples, freaks, and sick fish, and all for personal vanity.

It seems there comes a point where the love of a fish is exceeded by the love of amateur frankestien experiments, and that is a great shame. A human failing of a common kind is the need for control, auterism and power, not to mention dominion over the creatures we share life with. A blinkered self satisfaction at the cost of the things we profess to love.

To truly love a fish is not to wish ill health upon it, or to encourage anything that will perpetuate any kind of suffering for the species we claim to respect. I don't really think its very negotiable. That is the marker.To encourage the birth of crippled fish is akin to taking a healthy fish and harming it right there and then, like stunting it with bad keeping conditions. I see no difference. They are both signs of lacking responsibility, and a form of neglect. Responsibility to the as yet unborn is a serious thing. In a world where a doctor may abort a foetus to save it from a life of suffering and deformity, it seems an incredible inequality of morals to proactively plan a whole generation of deformed animals.

Hey, its an opinion. Make of it what you will.

Very well said brotha,
I personally do not like the oversized heads and I do agree that some are deformed
and it is a freak of nature like some females that have extraordinary sized breast that
will cripple them from daily activity. That is not why I am sharing these masterpieces.
These masterpieces are well balanced and does not have any spinal curvature. There
are quite many that do have curvatures such as the parrot shaped types. Anyways,
I do know what you are saying, and I do agree in many points you have said. But as
I did say, I am just sharing these pictures and that is all. All comments are welcome
and I am happy to read em all, negative and positive is ok.

Points of why i consider these masterpiece,
Balanced shaped body, balance shaped fins, strong color, cute face and a balance sized
head.

If you want to see deformed head, I can show you one but what can you do with this?
Kill it? or raise it?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a92/Jam420/DSC02929.jpg

That link doesnt go to a picture.


But if its as bad as I guess it would be, then if its really suffering you euthanise it, and if its life quality is tolerable you keep it, but never breed from it, ending the line right there. Thats the whole point really, there are supposedly masterpiece standard fish that will have kin that look rough as hell, and will be suffering, just like with parrots there will be a great many deformed fish alongside the functional ones as the deformity level may vary in the same batch of eggs. With parrots its estimated that out of all the specimens born, maybe 1 in 10 is really suitable for sale from some breeders stocks. Thats why its not worth getting to a "masterpiece" fish standard, plus you mix one fish like that with another hoping the offspring will be stable, and thanks to the dominance and recessiveness of genes you nearly always get a mixed batch, some may be almost normal, and others will be so bad they have to be euthanised. Its a very exploitative trade. If the "masterpiece" specimens you love become a primary genepool that could effectively mean the continuation of some very abusive practises, thats why I cant be for them. They still carry a set of genes that would normally be recessive, but the genepool is so limited it becomes the dominant, and the deformity increases from that point. It would be better if such fish were not allowed to breed seeing as they clearly carry the traits that lead to illness even if they themselves are not actually ill. Should that style of fish become more popular its possible that characteristic could be bred into most of the flowerhorn population, and that means without going back to the progenitor species, the populations health as a whole suffers. What is a masterpiece to you appears to me to be a fish with a set of characteristics that can plague a population with ill health if allowed to proliferate. Seriously, how many fish will be born with spinal issues from that one bloodline alone?

I think the fish you show as masterpieces are already too far gone, they show at least four major physical deformities, and they are enough to affect the entire structure of the fish. God help the ones that are any worse. Theres just no way you can change the dimensional morphology of a fish by increments of more than a few percent and expect to get away without multigenerational health issues.

These fish are about 30%shorter, and 20% thicker than average, the spinal curvature by any medical standard is radical.Its no small measure of deformity. The bones in the skull are deformed, the ribcage, the spine, the mouth, the muscle structure, the capacity of the internal organs,the hormonal balance leading to the growth of the lumpy head, everything. Those alone are enough to cause complications with so many illnesses and tolerances that its not worth listing them. How deformed does it have to be before you recognise the fact? Missing an eye maybe, its face twisted 180 degrees?

I see nothing but health problems for the progeny of those fish, but to be honest, you'll probably never see them, most will have been born to die, they will be culled, just to get the few "good" ones. Personally i would already have deselected those masterpiece fish to ensure that the deformity was bred out and the future health of the flowerhorn population secured, theres just too much wrong with them already.I wouldnt include genes as faulty as that in any breeding effort. It just seems like an incredible waste to take the genes of the progenitor species, honed by millions of years of evolution, into intelligent , powerful, graceful fish and reduce it down to something like that. I wouldnt wish to pollute a nature guided genepool and insert that level of deformity into it. It would be like taking the the worlds largest 20 tiered wedding cake, hand crafted for months, displayed elegantly and then deciding what it really need to make it appealing is a small piece of dog poo on the top.

You cant fix an error by pointing out that others have made bigger ones, it just doesnt work that way, especially not when an entire population of living creatures health and happiness depend on it.

I know you love these fish, but theres just no way I can ever accept that breeding in fundamental genetic flaws and physical disabilities will ever be a good thing. Its like taking something you love, and kicking it. I just cant do it.

Whoa, I just saw that picture, (thanks for fixing the link BTW,) that is completely insane! I guess you see it through for as long as it has energy to shoulder its burden, but I strongly suspect it would have to be euthanised early on grounds of prevention of suffering when it finally can't keep up with the demands of the weight distribution of its hump. I have a feeling fish like that probably end up as floaters before they reach any great age.

If I were put in a position of responsibility for that fish and its relatives, I would stop the breeding of any and all fish remotely related to that fish for at least 6 generations in every direction. End the entire family tree.

Your Welcome,

I am just showing you what I think is deformed and that is deformed.
I dont think people should breed these kinds but I doubt whatever anyone says
would make them stop. Anyways, in comparison to the previous masterpieces
I would say now that there is a borderline between deformed and just perfect.
For me, I would say the hudge head one is deformed, no doubt about it.
But for the previous ones, i have already given my opinion of why i think they
are masterpieces and it is subjective to each own opinion.
Thank you for your comments. Just sharing pictures.

Chingmixusa

Check out this nice GM, golden monkey strain.
Its got a big head but it seems quite strong.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A5PMvdEOYPg

ChingmixUSA