Crystal Red Shrimp, and Grade

Walt · Post by **Walt** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:07 am

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I see alot of mention of different grades of CRS.

Is there a guide to this scale somewhere?

Also.. it's my understanding that as the CRS mature, they tend to lose the white stripe width.

So.. how does the grading scale work, and does it apply to adults or juvies?

tapmxt1 · Post by **tapmxt1** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:09 am

Link#5 is in English and also with some price range information at the bottom. You may want to start with this one. (link #1 and #2 were translated from Japanses. link#3 is in Japanese. link#4 is in Chinese).

Here are 4 links. The information in the first link is kind of old and the standard seems very low.

Personally I use link#2 and link#4. (link#4 is in Chinese but it provides basically the same information as that in link#2)

Link#3 is the link to mff. Their S and SS grade are priced 10,000 yen to 100,000 yen.

1. http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/w ... N&wb_dis=2

2. http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/w ... N&wb_dis=2

3. http://www.mff.jp/gured.htm

4. http://www.tonina-forest.net/tonina/crs/crs08.htm

5. http://www.shrimpnow.com/modules.php?na ... icle&id=21

tapmxt1 · Post by **tapmxt1** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:15 am

By the way, forgot to point out one thing. In my prior posting, that is the Japanese (Asia) standard of grading CRS.

A different grade standard was developed in Europe. It appears that Europens like shrimps in all red.

Two extremes of grading the CRS.

amber2461 · Post by **amber2461** » Tue May 31, 2005 9:05 am

Thanks for the links and certainly eye popping candy.

blenny · Post by **blenny** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:11 am

Link #1 and #2 are out of today's standard.

Erirku · Post by **Erirku** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:15 pm

whats with all the grading on crytals? To some people it's a hobby to collect different types of shrimp for pure enjoyment, but to others its all about who has what grade? I find it ridiculous on the grades of the crystals. So now what, everyone wants the SS crystals, what a bunch of baloney!!! Try to think of the real reason why you have these critters, for enjoyment or just to show off? I'm not trying to offend anyone, but this is my opinion, and I felt I had to write out my opinions. Its like comparing a crystal to a Mercedes or Honda, take your pick. Sorry if I made anybody mad or offended, but I find this info offending.

tapmxt1 · Post by **tapmxt1** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:46 pm

Well, if all CRS will be born to be exactly the same, I guess there will be no grading -- just like KOI angelfish.

MellowAquatics grades their (beautiful) koi angelfish to calico koi angelfish and orange koi angelfish. Personally I respect all these grading standards and I do find it is very useful and helpful in trading or exchanging angelfish with other hobbyists. It's like secret words among hobbyists.

So, if one says he offers a group of orange koi angelfish for trade or exchange, I do not need to see a photo but can expect these fish have at least 75% orange/yellow coverage.

fugly · Post by **fugly** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:34 pm

Why have dog shows? Or any kind of animal show? The reason is that people want to know that the breed they are keeping is a champion, that being that the animal is purebred. Same applies here for CRS. You want to keep the bloodlines clean, no hybrids. To you, it may be about enjoyment... To me, it is about keeping desirable traits. And who's to say that keeping high grade shrimp doesn't add to one's enjoyment of keeping them?

jonathan03 · Post by **jonathan03** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:16 pm

If you want to keep the highest grade, your going to need a few tanks. One tank with the best shrimp and another with the secondary shrimp. After each brood of new shrimp you will have to sort out the good ones and the bad ones. Even if you breed very pure shrimp, there is a chance you might get some lower grade shrimp than you started with so you have to sort those out.

You can make some serious $$$ if you really get into it with high grade shrimp. I'm sure it will be one of the funest jobs for a profit you ever had too.

I would compare the crystal red grading to fancy guppies. You can get guppies for pennies if they are a low grade. However, the purest grade fish go for $30+.

But you might consider a lower grade if your just starting out. I never kept crystal reds, but I lost a few cherries since they were the first shrimp I kept. It would be painful to lose a $100 shrimp or two.

Walt · Post by **Walt** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:39 am

If you dont like the grade thing.. then dont do it.

I think the idea is selective breeding.

By using parents with more desireable attributes, you get better offspring. That's better for everyone. As more people breed better offspring, the better stock people will have.

I was into betta fish for a while. The ideal betta is a halfmoon. The tail forms a perfect semicircle. A walmart betta is like $2. Good halfmoons were a couple hundred bucks. Back then, if you bred halfmoons, you got maybe 2 halfmoon fry in 100. Today, the stronger finnage fish are bred, and you can get like.. 50%. So.. now there are alot more high quality fish available, and even novices can get them for a much more reasonable price, and the quality of the fish on the market is much better.

When a mutation comes out, people need to decide what they want it to look like and breed for that. Otherwise there's no consistency, and it's all about luck.

GunmetalBlue · Post by **GunmetalBlue** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:54 pm

Hi, Erirku's comment isn't entirely without merit, though to defenders, perhaps it is a little misplaced. I'm refreshed by someone who's offended by people "perfecting" something through manipulation as opposed to accepting an animal/someone unconditionally. If you look at Erirku's comments, I suspect part of it is that he/she's sick and tired of people's attitudes of elitism via object. The real test is, is a person just as nice and acceptable when not hanging out in their Testarrosa/Lamborghini/name your ideal car?

The offense comes when someone feels they're better than someone else by the possesion of a so-called desirable object, an object that's supposed to meet some man-made critera. I'm not overly against animal shows, I do understand their use. Competition is a fact of life in most areas. If you look closer into animal shows, you'll find many "nut cases;" not meant as a derogatory remark; rather, just the passion involved.

So as Walt says, "If you dont like the grade thing.. then dont do it." My hope for people who do do it, is that they make decent accommodations/lives for their "cast offs."

> "By using parents with more desireable attributes, you get better offspring. That's better for everyone. As more people breed better offspring, the better stock people will have."

Walt, if you were talking about humans, do you realize how ugly that sounds? I think for more sensitive people, there is an unpleasant inference, thus the discomfort with the idea.

-GB

fugly · Post by **fugly** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:48 pm

GunmetalBlue wrote:Hi, Erirku's comment isn't entirely without merit, though to defenders, perhaps it is a little misplaced. I'm refreshed by someone who's offended by people "perfecting" something through manipulation as opposed to accepting an animal/someone unconditionally. If you look at Erirku's comments, I suspect part of it is that he/she's sick and tired of people's attitudes of elitism via object. The real test is, is a person just as nice and acceptable when not hanging out in their Testarrosa/Lamborghini/name your ideal car?

First off, I'm not offended by any of Erirku's comments. She's certainly entitled to her opinion. I just found it a little overreactive. There wouldn't be CRS to begin with if someone had not decided to do a little selective breeding with mutations. So if you ever laid eyes on a CRS and wanted it, you are just as guilty as someone who desires a high grade CRS. That's the way I see it.

Elitism? I don't see how that plays a role in any of this. It is really more about selective breeding and about perfecting desired traits, hence, the term "selective". I have a tiger shrimp breeding program right now, and there are certain traits that I like more than others, so, of course I will separate the ones with the desired traits (for purposes of argument, I will call these "high" grade). This does not make me an elitist and it does *not* mean that I don't enjoy any of the "low" grade offspring. I keep them nonetheless and allow them to continue breeding on their own, as they are highly interesting animals with behaviors that I enjoy watching. I do not cull, as may be customary in some parts of the world.

The offense comes when someone feels they're better than someone else by the possesion of a so-called desirable object, an object that's supposed to meet some man-made critera. I'm not overly against animal shows, I do understand their use. Competition is a fact of life in most areas. If you look closer into animal shows, you'll find many "nut cases;" not meant as a derogatory remark; rather, just the passion involved.

So as Walt says, "If you dont like the grade thing.. then dont do it." My hope for people who do do it, is that they make decent accommodations/lives for their "cast offs."

I keep mine, so no argument there. Admittedly, some breeders do it for the competition and they lose sight of the enjoyment. Most of us here are hobbyists and not likely to discard the "cast offs".

> "By using parents with more desireable attributes, you get better offspring. That's better for everyone. As more people breed better offspring, the better stock people will have."

Walt, if you were talking about humans, do you realize how ugly that sounds? I think for more sensitive people, there is an unpleasant inference, thus the discomfort with the idea.

-GB

Humans are much more complex in that we choose our partners. Animals are less likely than we are to be selective about their partners. We tend to do the choosing for them.

GunmetalBlue · Post by **GunmetalBlue** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:23 pm

I've no problem with any part of your above reply, Fugly; from what you stated, you possess a good attitude toward your animals.

You misunderstood my use of the word elitism; I meant it in a general sense, when a person hides behind what they have as their source of ego and tries to create a facade of an inner circle to continually stroke it. As stated in my earlier reply, I'm referring to attitudes, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Ideally, when a person learns about a certain subject; hopefully they'll return what they've taken by giving back to the community via educating and helping the "beginners" who *are* interested rather than trying to make them feel like exactly that: "Painful beginners."

> "Humans are much more complex in that we choose our partners."

Perhaps you didn't understand my inference. The people who have the freedom and want to choose their own partners are fortunate. It's not always like this all over the world, though it is improving.

-GB

Walt · Post by **Walt** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:13 am

GunmetalBlue wrote: Walt, if you were talking about humans, do you realize how ugly that sounds?
-GB

I dont think it's ugly. I think it's a fact of life.

Look at the media. Turn on your TV, and watch the news, shows, etc. How many ugly people do you see? Flip through a magazine, and also try to find ugly people. We are presented with "pretty people" because that is what we prefer to see and associate with.

Look at people walking around. People try to be as attractive as they can. We shave, get haircuts, buy clothes that accentuate our good side, choose colors that make us look better etc. In the primal sense, we are trying to attract the most attractive mate that we can, because we want our offspring to be attractive, and in such, have a better chance of passing on our genetics.

If you look around, if you see someone that is attractive, most likely their spouse/mate/partner/etc is also similarly attractive. Lets face it, the only ugly guys that have pretty wives are either rich, or have paid for upgrades. It's crass, I admit, but that's the way things work.

The same people that say, "It's what's inside that counts" will not be looking for the ugly strippers for that lap dance.

I'm not saying people should like it, but I think you're kidding yourself if you try to believe otherwise.

It is a matter of choice. If you dont have a choice in your culture, then you dont have a choice. But if people can choose, they tend to choose the most attractive mate they can get to accept them.

With animals that are not bonded, they are subject to what ever mates are available. So.. selective breeding is how you're gonna shape your gene pool if you choose to do so.

Jackie · Post by **Jackie** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:22 am

Walt wrote:In the primal sense, we are trying to attract the most attractive mate that we can, because we want our offspring to be attractive, and in such, have a better chance of passing on our genetics.

It's a bit more complicated than that (although I agree with you). Latest studies show, for example, that most men are sexually attracted to chubby (not fat) women but are ashamed to admit it. When asked to show the most attractive woman they picked photos of the "model-like" ones. The same test, but anonymous, shows thet men pick woman who, by today's beauty standards, should lose about 20 pounds.

I'm not saying this because I have any interest in it - I'm on the skinny side myself.

Life is strange...