# Culling



## justmel (Apr 1, 2013)

I've been reading over these threads for days, than reading them again, but I do have questions about culling the fry. Honestly at this point I have heard the word & believe it means getting rid of unwanted fry, but know nothing more than that. My question is how do you decide what to cull & when? If anyone has a good article or two on this I'd love to read them if you can point me in the right direction.

I am trying to learn all I can before I start spawing, so any and all info would be greatly welcome.


----------



## trilobite (May 18, 2011)

Culling is getting rid of individuals from your breeding population. For fish this usually means killing humanely like clove oil, feeding to larger fish or smacking on the head. 
I cull mine based on deformities, runts, rosetails, bad scales, bad toplines and bad finnage. Some people also cull for colour

If you can find people who want to take culls off your hands then by all means go for it, just make sure they wont breed those culls.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

For me I only cull if my fry have obvious physical deformities or fail to thrive. I've found that most of my runts tend to self-cull anyway in the first few weeks and so I've never had to do any large scale culling like some breeders do. 

Plus my fish always come out with the same uniform look and colour depending on their species so I also have no need to cull based on aesthetics.


----------



## justmel (Apr 1, 2013)

Thanks you! Than it is basically what I was thinking it was and I can handle that with no problem. I was going to try a spawning with leaving the dad in the tank, so maybe he will handle all the culling for me anyway.


----------



## dramaqueen (Jul 7, 2008)

Sometimes you can give babies who would otherwise be culled to people who just want a nice pet. I've taken in several fish that might have been culled if they didn't find homes.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

"But where should our fun stop and betta ethics begin? It is oftentimes a fine line... Blurred by too many careless people... In other words, if we are to play GOD by creating life, do we not owe it to our creations to care about them and FOR them? Is it not our moral responsibility? If we do not have the adequate space, time, financial resources to provide the fry with proper care and most importantly homes, should we even attempt to spawn in the first place? Are we being selfish when we spawn for fun but the many bettas we produce suffer?

The answer is yes, yes and YES."

Faith at bettatalk

^This is my view exactly. I will only cull for a defect that will make their lives awful. To me, bringing lives into this world and killing them off because they don't have perfect form, color, etc is simply horrible. To cull does not always mean to kill however. Many people would take a fish with bad form (usually, unless they are a fellow breeder, they would not care). Some people (you could probably find a few on this forum) would even take culls that have issues like congenital defects such as sbd and make the special arrangements to pet them live a happy life.


----------



## justmel (Apr 1, 2013)

Thank you dramaqueen, I actually have several people lined up that want bettas. I know they will take them even if they aren't 'perfect' in color. I'll likely keep a lot of the others myself. I've already warned everyone here I may end up with hundreds of bettas! lol, I was meaning fry, but I didn't specify that. If they say anything I can always say I warned them.

I agree Matt. That's why I still have 1 guppy, she's a hunchback and we call her Quazi. She has no color, and is very plan and boring, but she has a right to a happy life as well. I just keep her from the boys so she doesn't have babies herself. I will likely end up keeping any bettas that have physical defects. It happens in all species and I sure wouldn't throw out my kid if he was born deformed. That's why I was asking about culls. I've seen it mentioned a lot here and wanted to make sure I had the facts. I don't mind culling for something that is harmful for the fish, but I won't be getting rid of my babies for color or because their fins aren't perfect.


----------



## Artemis (Mar 9, 2013)

bettysplendens has an article on leaving the father with fry and the dad will eat only the fry that are deformed and leave the healthy ones but it's harder then general spawning. http://bettysplendens.com/articles/page.imp?articleid=809
http://bettysplendens.com/articles/page.imp?articleid=839


----------



## DezernGirl (Nov 21, 2012)

This is just so confusing for me because I want to produce a good line without being overrun with Bettas, but I am so tender hearted I can hardly kill a bug...

I asked Elitebetta on YouTube about this because he said his Bettas only got the treatment they deserved (feeding, cleaned bowls) if they lived up to his standards. He said they were immediately destroyed if they did not.

I thought this sounded harsh, but he does have some nice fish.

What is humane/inhumane and where do you draw the line?


----------



## trilobite (May 18, 2011)

Im a wuss too so I just give my culls to a friend so I dont have to watch. 
Humane for me is a quick death, anything like throwing them alive on the grass or flushing down the toilet is cruel

In my opinion each generation should be an improvement on the next, the stricter the selection process is the better quality fish you get. Kinda like a hard exam thats so strict only the best of the best can pass.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

Yes but (not to start a debate) you are still killing an animal because it doesn't look perfect, which is wrong. The ones with bad form could be sold specifically as non breeders.


----------



## Hadoken Kitty (Jan 24, 2013)

The ones that I plan to cull will be used as food for a friend of mine's pets (mostly reptiles). I strongly believe in the circle of life. I really don't want to cull a fish that doesn't have perfect finnage, though. If they have fins that look absolutely horrendous though...like...obvious x-factor issues....I'd probably cull that.


----------



## trilobite (May 18, 2011)

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to the breeders morals and what they believe is necessary


----------



## iGoatfish (Dec 17, 2012)

My Koi pond at work has amazing population of bettas. That's where I put my fish I can't give away. Sick or deformed fish get the garbage desposel


----------



## justmel (Apr 1, 2013)

The koi ponds not a bad idea for warmer climates, but it would get to cold for the poor little bettas here. Still not a bad idea for those that can do it.


----------



## Option (Oct 20, 2012)

trilobite said:


> For fish this usually means killing humanely like clove oil, feeding to larger fish or smacking on the head.


LOL....I never understood how feeding betta fry to another fish was considered a humane way to die. A non-wasteful way to die perhaps, but to me it's definitely not a humane way.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

Unless it's euthanizing them because of a debilitating and permanent condition, its not humane, no matter how you kill them.


----------



## Taeanna (Apr 2, 2013)

'Humane' in euthanizing animals is defined as painless, quick and with a degree of dignity. I am afraid 'why' isn't really a part of it.
In some ways breeders of larger animals have it easier, a dog that isn't perfect can be de-sexed and sold to a family as a loving pet. To that degree for a fish breeder one could always make a deal with a local pet store or advertise 'pet only' Betta for private sale.
Other options people could look into is making a deal with people needing large amounts of fish for study (universities looking into treatment perhaps) could take the genetically inferior and look after them while they conduct tests. The fish gets an happy (if somewhat shorter) life and help their brother and sister Bettas the world over.

In some cases people could argue that keeping their genetic failures, might be good in the long term. I am put in mind of two cat breeds, the stumpie and the laperm. Both were cats that simply appeared out of nowhere, genetic mutations that were separated and bred to produce new true breeds. Even a mutt can shine.

[Edit] The stumpy is called a munchkin cat. Wrong breed name there.


----------



## registereduser (Jul 30, 2010)

I'd like to know how many of the people in this thread are vegans?


----------



## DezernGirl (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't think feeding them to another fish is inhumane. I heard it is relatively quick and painless (but who really knows that). I mean, the carnivorous fish has to live too. It is sad, but that is the way mother nature intended for it to be apparently. At least they would die with a purpose. I won't cull unless I have to, but if I do, I'm giving them to my LFS as feeder fish. The big fish have got to eat something.

However, this form has made me feel better about my anti-culling feelings. I was starting to get the picture that in order to have a nice respectable breedery, you had to cull extensively. I'd rather all of my healthy ones get their fair chance so I will just give them out to whoever wants them most likely. 

If I ever have too though, I am prepared to give them away as feeders.


----------



## Agility4fun (Nov 16, 2012)

If you want to take this a step further, breeding for color and fin type is also wrong. If you're breeding, you should be breeding for healthier, stronger fish; improving the fish. Brighter colors or more lavish fins are absolutely worthless to the fish's survival. Simply look to the dog world for examples of what has gone wrong when you breed for color/coat type.


----------



## iGoatfish (Dec 17, 2012)

Breeding fish that live longer. Interesting! Like Koi that live 150 years


----------



## trilobite (May 18, 2011)

Agility4fun said:


> If you want to take this a step further, breeding for color and fin type is also wrong. If you're breeding, you should be breeding for healthier, stronger fish; improving the fish. Brighter colors or more lavish fins are absolutely worthless to the fish's survival. Simply look to the dog world for examples of what has gone wrong when you breed for color/coat type.


The we would only have wild type plakats.
You could then argue that the people breeding them for fighting are doing a better job as they are selecting for strength and vitality. 
A long finned fancy fighter bred only for looks is a pampered pet, it doesnt need to avoid predators, hunt for food or defend territories. 
Breeding dogs for looks alone is a whole different argument as dogs serve/served working purposes and breeding for looks alone eliminates that ability. 
Ornamental fish however have been bred only for looks and thats why we keep them. Their only "job" is to look pretty and beg owner for food


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

> If you want to take this a step further, breeding for color and fin type is also wrong. If you're breeding, you should be breeding for healthier, stronger fish; improving the fish. Brighter colors or more lavish fins are absolutely worthless to the fish's survival. Simply look to the dog world for examples of what has gone wrong when you breed for color/coat type.


So, I guess we should all stop supporting and buying the long finned types? And like trilobite said, in that case we should support the breeders of fighters because they aim for strength and vitality. These are ornamental fish, they do perfectly fine with their long fins and colors. By the time you can judge the lifespan of a fish, they would be to old to safely breed. And to address the feeding to other fish point, I agree that it is natural and the fish is "recycled", but there are no oscars where bettas live, and how can we truly say that it is painless? 

To address the op's original question, I will only cull those with deformities that will ruin their lives. They can be culled as soon as you know that they have the disability.

Edit: Im sorry that this has become a debate. It has got to be one of, if not the most controversial topics in breeding.


----------



## Myates (Aug 2, 2011)

If you care for the parents properly and they are healthy.. and care for the fry properly with the right water changes, food, temp, etc.. then it doesn't matter if they are long or short finned. 

One can breed healthy bettas for looks.. 

I made the mistake of not culling my 550+ fry spawn sooner, as even with multiple grow out tanks they are growing a bit slower than normal. I ended up culling for size, as they all looked healthy and not deformed. Down to about 60-75 fry at the most from that spawn. Culling is a good thing - cull for deformities early on, then cull the runts and then cull for what you can't care for and yes, cull for what you believe won't be sold (looks wise) (unless have a LFS willing to take them off your hands). 

You do your best to make sure your fry are healthy, that is all you can do. But as stated, these are ornamental fish created by man.. as long as the breeder did right by them, after that it's up to the owners of each fish how healthy it will be. Can't change the life span. In the wild the life span of a splenden (if lucky) is 2-4 yrs. In captivity our ornamental fish have a life span of 1-6 years, some up to 8 years depending on OWNERS and how they care for each fish... so I guess the breeders are doing a decent job at making sure they breed for health


----------



## isochronism (Nov 24, 2012)

Agility say's: "You should be breeding for healthier, stronger fish"...& "Simply look at the dog world of what has gone wrong when you breed for color/coat type"
Very, Very Well Put!!!!!


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

*DOGS ARE DIFFERENT IN SO, SO MANY WAYS.*

Comparing dogs, a traditionally working animal to bettas, a ornamental fish, makes no sense at all. And in using your logic we should all be breeding and keeping traditional PK fighters.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

I agree. Betta splendens (excluding traditional/fighting PKs) are bred purely for aesthetics. If you look at the show standards for these fish it is very much based on how the fish looks (of course attitude does have a role to play). 

Therefore, I see nothing wrong with fish being culled because they do not fit this ideal. That is the purpose of the ornamental Betta splendens and the reason for their popularity today. They are a fish whose only real 'job' is to look good in a glass box. 

The fancier strains no longer have to survive out in the wild or fight against other males. Therefore, selecting for these traits is not necessary.


----------



## justmel (Apr 1, 2013)

I wouldn't worry over much that this has turned into a debate. I hope no one has ended up with wounded feeling with everyone expressing their opinion. I've gotten a lot of good information here and feel much better on being able to handle a cull. I do have a LFS that will take my bettas. Currently they have theirs shipped in & they would love a local breeder.


----------



## DezernGirl (Nov 21, 2012)

I suppose you can breed for whatever suits your fancy. I personally wouldn't want an un attractive fish that's so healty its stuck with me for years. I think someone should be able to strive for both. I don't know how dogs got brought into this, but they should also be bred for health, purpose, and desired look, just like fish. A Betta's purpose is to look pretty.


----------

