Is the Fight Being Bred Out Of Fighting Fish?: How Would We Know And What Does It Matter If It Is?

By Gene A. Lucas g.a.lucas@worldnet.att.com

Originally Published:

FAMA Magazine

March 2002

Vol. 25 - No. 3 - Pg. 22

Is there something different about Siamese Fighting Fish these days? Is the fight going out of them? Lately I've been having troubles and from what I have been hearing I am not alone. I refer specifically to getting any of them to spawn and I am pondering the problem and what can be done about it. This discussion will deal with what I believe may be some answers.

In a recent article I discussed what I called abnormalities in domestic Betta behaviors, most of which had to do with breeding. At that time I considered all the different things they don't do right but didn't go into great detail in particular. My decision to focus on one now is based on my own problems and the apparent acceleration in incidences of it among other breeders ... if my correspondence and e-mail means anything.

The problem is that I have been having trouble getting my male Bettas to spawn. Not just one or two but almost any of them? Here I am, a person with many years and many spawns of experience and one who has been giving advice on the issue for as long as I can remember, facing the very thing I thought I had under control. It is particularly frustrating because I am working on a series of matings to try to determine inheritance information on the intriguing characteristic known as "Crowntails." As often seems the case I need to get spawns from certain genetic types. It isn't just that I want to get some spawns.

After trying all the conventional ploys to overcome this breeding reluctance, I became faced with either failure with no explanation or failure with some possible explanation. The latter would at least give me some clue as to what might happen next, which might in turn permit me to think of another approach, or divert me to raising rabbits or something else, or maybe just retiring from it all and going fishing. There are times when going fishing seems the most appealing.

A Working Hypothesis

The scientific approach to dealing with an unknown is to try to come up with a possible explanation, then attempt to find a way to prove or disprove it. Part of an extended definition of a hypothesis in my dictionary reads "A hypothesis may be termed a comprehensive guess." (Another part refers to it as an "unsupported or ill supported theory" which may make more sense to some readers!). It does serve as a focus for study which is the main point.

I start by making the assumption that what is going on is the inadvertent and unintended selection, by breeders of Bettas, away from their legendary aggressiveness. I specifically avoided referring to it as their natural aggressiveness because I believe this trait is only marginally natural but unquestionably legendary. The following discussion will support this assertion and attempt to build a case for the notion of breeding aggressiveness in and out of a species under domestication and I should emphasize that I am referring only to one species of fighting fish, Betta splendens.

A Brief Historical Review

For background we have a century and a half of aquarium lore which is well documented and from it we can extrapolate even further back and draw some reasonable conclusions. For example, the published descriptions of fish fighting by travelers in the mid eighteen hundreds were of well established cultural events. Staging all kinds of animal fights are centuries-old pastimes though it is impossible to know when they first started. The practice of breeding fish in captivity and selectively guiding them to become better at fighting must also have had a lengthy past. There might, of course, be a verbal history but unfortunately I don't know how we might get access to it.

I have numerous articles in my files concerning fighting fish and I thought it might help to provide some excerpts from one which can shed light on both the nature of the fighting fish and the breeding, genetics, and training of fighting strains. The article I am using is from an English language edition of the Sunday magazine section of the Bangkok Post of November 10, 1974. It is by Thamrong Trisawasdi and is entitled "Fighting Fish" with a subtitle "the art of training a 'pedigree' fish." I'll provide several quotations, then comment on them as they relate to my problem:

"Siamese fighters sold in city fish stalls by the roadside are unclassed ones. They will fight if put together in the same jar but will be no match for the ones trained to fight for stakes."

"The original strains are known as the 'Luk Thung' and 'Luk Pah.' The Luk Thung are so called because they are found in water holes in rice fields. The Thai word for a rice field is 'Thung' and 'Luk" means offspring. The Luk Pah, as the name signifies, are found in jungle water holes or remote, stagnant pools. Luk Pah means offspring of the jungle."

"These fish in their wild state do not have much stamina and their fights do not last very long. Before gamblers can work themselves up into a frenzy of betting, one fish may already be vanquished. Hence fanciers have to breed new strains, concentrating on fighting ability. Luk Thungs and Luk Pahs, with dominant fighting qualities, are crossed and re-crossed until a good fighting stock is born."

"The fish are bred in this earthen jar till adulthood. Because they are kept in an earthen jar until fully grown, they earn the name 'Luk Mor' which means offspring of the earthen jar."

"Just one breeding will not produce a good fighter. The breeding must be repeated for many generations. Each time the best of the lot is chosen for further breeding until a real Luk Mor strain is obtained, bearing no characteristics of the Luk Pah. A fully grown Luk Mor will attain a length of about 6 cms. This is as much as 1 cm longer than any large Luk Thung or Luk Pah from which they originated."

"Because of the time taken is too long (sic) for the Luk Mor to fight to the finish some fanciers cross a male Luk Mor with a female Luk Thung. The product of this mating is known as a 'Sangasi' or 'tinplate.' These have very sharp teeth and fight longer than the Luk Thung but shorter than the Luk Mor. Some will mate a male Sangasi with a female Luk Thung. The offspring will look like a natural Luk Thung, and they will go around challenging Luk Thungs for a fight. A Luk Thung owner unwillingly taking the challenge may rue the day, for he will lose all his stake money. Only professional fish fighters know the difference between the two breeds."

This fairly long article also told about how the fish are housed, fed, and bred and described in some detail the training of fighters. Training involved allowing the fish to see others through glass, giving them practice by putting them in with and interacting with other Bettas and fish of species of similar size and building up their stamina by putting them daily into large bowls in which the water is swirled vigorously causing them to have to swim against a current. Another aspect of training involved extensive handling in the form of putting them into various containers and transporting them about.

Observations

These quotations were derived from a single article but I have others which basically provide the same information. I think they can adequately support my interpretations but I would urge interested readers to do some further research if this seems unsatisfactory. There are many accounts available in older literature.

It seems clear enough that there are increments of difference in the intensity of aggression between the various strains of fighting fish. The true wild types are distinctly less aggressive and the fighters are cultivated for maximum aggressiveness. The Thai breeders who are surely not trained behavioral biologists or geneticists nevertheless recognize the resource stocks from which the fighters have been refined and the generations and selection required to develop and maintain them. They are also aware of differences in the fighting traits of the various hybrids between domestic fighters and wild stocks.

I try to hybridize different domestic types with wild types whenever I can get them since it is one of the best ways to study the inheritance of domestic genetic elements. I obtained numerous hybrids from stocks provided from various sources and identified, valid or not, as Betta splendens, Betta smaragdina, or Betta imbellis. In all cases the hybrids were less aggressive than the domestic stocks. Some were downright spooky. These results reinforced my belief that domestic show types were derived from fighting stocks somewhere down the line.

I have often argued that there are three types of Betta splendens, true wild types, the domestically refined fighting stocks, and domestic fancy Bettas with the various color and fin variations we see in show strains. I am satisfied that the description above of how fighting stocks came to be must be correct. I also believe that the various fancy Betta types must have been derived from fighting stocks since they had to have turned up in spawns that were being bred where someone would see something different that appeared. There are no reasons to assume mutations cannot occur in wild as well as domestic stocks, but when they do, they have the double whammy of being less adapted for survival and not having anyone around to see them and to preserve and breed them. The only logical source, then, must be the domestic fighters.

Mention was made of "many generations" earlier in the context of the development of good fighters. Let's consider what that means since I think it is relevant to the discussion. We know that fighting Bettas was an established practice 150 years ago and we know that long finned Bettas of several color types were introduced into the western world in 1927 ... 75 years ago. We know Bettas have short life cycles and could easily produce three generations a year, but if, for the sake of this argument, we just assume two, that means that there would have been at least 300 generations of fighting strains and 150 generations of fancy. Obviously, since both types were well refined by the dates indicated, both types had to have been under development for some time before as well. I'm sure it would be permissible to add another twenty percent to each and that could well be very conservative.

Breeding Bettas is certainly a unique and well developed aspect of the hobby of fishkeeping. There are two major "industries" involving them, fighting and showing. Both involve selective breeding for sets of traits progressively different from the wild type but also different from each other. Oddly, they require more or less the same techniques of "husbandry" yet the end products are so unlike that when the first fancy Bettas showed up in this country they were thought to be a new species. I think it probable that the three lines, wild, fighting, and show, can be regarded as separate and more or less true breeding entities.

A significant mutation may introduce a trait which can instantly be incorporated into a strain but those that are cultivated by selection may take many generations to establish. How many is "many"? No one really knows but I would think that twenty or thirty might be enough to develop a fighter that was far superior to wild types and single gene mutations like cambodia or doubletail could occur at any time and be introduced into stocks immediately.

Selection for traits that make a good fighter involve attention to such things as overall size, head and mouth size, teeth size and sharpness, thicker scales, speed, endurance and attitude. These would all be selected for simultaneously so it would not be a case of trying to introduce each into the stock separately. The techniques of conditioning, training, and gamesmanship would presumably be developed at the same time. My guess would be that the development of color and form variations would be carried out without great concern for fighting prowess so these stocks might or might not maintain their aggressiveness.

Fighting ability has never been part of the culture of main stream Betta keeping in this country. In fact, the practice has been consistently opposed by almost everyone. I should acknowledge that the influx of people from the Betta part of the world, particularly after the Vietnam War, provided an upsurge of interest but it is mostly clandestine and still tangential to what domestic Betta breeders are concerned about. While there has developed a segment of the market for fighting fish, most of those interested in fighting Bettas pretty much ignore fancy Bettas as they seem generally regarded as inferior fighters.

People who have studied Betta behavior have described in great detail the ritualistic actions associated with "Display" when two fish are able to confront one another. It involves orientation toward one another, color change (where possible - some color types like cambodian and yellow cannot noticeably alter their color), fin spreading, erection of the gill covers and membrane, swimming motions and so on. It has been noted that the behavior between males preliminary to fights and between sexes preliminary to spawning seem identical to the observer. Conversely, it seems usually that when displaying does not occur, the ensuing fighting or breeding also fail to materialize.

I remember reading of attempts to breed less aggressive strains in hopes that they might get peaceful enough so that they could be raised together in tanks rather than separately in jars. That would obviously have practical benefits for both hobbyists and suppliers. I also recall reading a report (I don't think it was of a scientific study) that the less aggressive strains were more difficult to breed and at least one person suggested that the lack of aggression might have something to do with lowered interest in breeding. Those breeders may have seen something that has been pretty much ignored over the years but perhaps we need to look into it more seriously.

Is the Modern Show Betta A "Hothouse Flower"?

What are the priorities of show Betta breeders anyhow? Bettas of today are developed along a sort of guided design. This is the color and form class designations from the show standards of the International Betta Congress. People who breed Bettas which match closest the ideals provided by judging standards win the prizes, recognition and the opportunity to get good prices for their fish. Pretty simple.

Beautiful show Betas will be of high quality color and must deport themselves well during showing but their prime feature is their finnage. The best have full, highly developed fins which they carry with apparent pride and show off to their neighbors and anyone who cares to watch. The breeders scrutinize fins carefully, seeking the third or even fourth branching of the supporting rays (regarded as characteristic of the best) and avoiding fins that are narrow, asymmetrical, weak or damaged. The search is always for the best to breed to the best according to a mental image of form rather than behavior.

Unfortunately, a common sight in fishrooms and at shows is a bunch of large, heavily finned Bettas resting placidly at the bottom of their jars or tanks. They rise occasionally to the surface for a gulp of air although sometimes they look as if it might take a lot of effort to do so. They feed sluggishly and spend most of the time ignoring their neighbors. These orchids of the fish world sometimes resemble morning after corsages more than sturdy blossoms!

While active fin carriage and deportment are important, breeding for extreme aggression has not been the top priority it is with breeders of fighters. There is evidence of concern about this lack of aggression and some have tried crossing with "roundtail" or short finned fighters to try to increase it again but crosses that generate increased aggressive tendencies also cause losses in show quality, at least in the short term. This hasn't yet become a common practice and I'm not sure it ever will be. Thus far I have not heard of any breeder specifically addressing the loss or attempted increase of aggression in the context of spawning behavior.

Discussion And Conclusion

The questions I asked in my title can be answered to some degree. There is ample evidence for genetic differences in aggression. There is good support for the similarities between breeding and fighting display behaviors. We are gaining anecdotal evidence that many show Bettas are less active and that breeding, at least in some strains, is becoming more difficult. To the "how will we know?" part of my question, all we need to do is to look at the fish and the difficulties we face as we attempt to get our fish to spawn. To the "What does it matter?" part I'd say the answer should be obvious. The more difficult it is to breed the fish the more we risk the loss of types and strains. If that is something we care about, and I think it should be, then we are forced to do something about it. This means we may have to make some of those undesirable crosses or take much greater care to include aggressiveness in our selection criteria.

Has my hypothesis been proved or disproved? I hope I have made somewhat a case for it but I don't think it is proved. I feel fairly strong that the problem is growing and I think I am on the right track but more information is needed. Where do we go from here? I hope interested readers who also breed Bettas will take a closer look and help provide more data. We may eventually find out something to satisfy our curiosity but also save our Betta strains.