Dyed Fish?

[Bloo]

Yes, but there is breeding for specific traits etc. and then there's genetic modification (by manipulating and altering the genes and adding a natural fluorescence gene) - 2 entirely different things.

 

[Themuleous]

Indeed, sorry I wasn't talking about the glowfish things, thats just weird, like giving a horse, feathers.

Sam

 

[wendywc]

Very good points, Neale. But I just wanted to make my point that glofish are genetically modified and not inhumanely dyed or tatooed; so they should not be grouped with those inhumane practices.

As for whether man should genetically alter or breed out certain charactistics in fish or other animals --- that's another discussion that I think we agree that we disagree on for now.

 

[Themuleous]

Very good points, Neale. But I just wanted to make my point that glofish are genetically modified and not inhumanely dyed or tatooed; so they should not be grouped with those inhumane practices.

As for whether man should genetically alter or breed out certain charactistics in fish or other animals --- that's another discussion that I think we agree that we disagree on for now.

Depends on what you mean by 'inhumane' I guess? If a fish 'glows' would it not make them stressed as they'll stick out like a light bulb and so would feel prone to attack? (even if they'er in a seperate tank, they dont know they aint gonna get eaten!) is that not also inhumane?

 

[Jenniflower]

I know one thing for certain, in my mind, genetically modifying anything, including fish, dogs, cats and foods to me is a practice that should be left well alone. Until people fully understand the long term consequences of what they do then I believe in the 'if it ain't broke, then don't fix it' approach.

I certainly will not buy dyed fish, tattooed fish or genetically modified fish - even if that means I have to do without my glowlight tetras (are they modified too?)

JenniFlower

 

[Themuleous]

glowlight tetras are fine, we'll so long as they dont look 'funny'. Thats no help at all! but I've not heard of them being coloured at all. Other people might though.

 

[wendywc]

Jenniflower, glowlight tetras are not genetically modified. And Themuleous, I won't venture to guess what my fish are thinking, but I highly doubt they feel constantly stressed out.

 

[Bloo]

To the very best of my knowledge, glowlight tetras are 100% natural

 

[Themuleous]

Jenniflower, glowlight tetras are not genetically modified. And Themuleous, I won't venture to guess what my fish are thinking, but I highly doubt they feel constantly stressed out.

You have some then? Please dont get me wrong each to their own, Im just interested to see what people think So how do they get them like it then?

 

[Bloo]

Scientists took the gene from a sea anemone and then transferred it to the Danio - so basically trans species manipulation and modification There are many many scientific articles on the net (the glofish website kinda skims over the "real" issues).

Edit: but just found another report that says it's jellyfish, so not sure if it's anemone or jellyfish:

The fluorescent genes are extracted from jellyfish and then injected into zebra fish eggs...... But in order to trigger off the genes in the fish to be of any use, inducible gene promoters are used to act as control switches to activate different tissues on the fish.

Sounds nice ?

Ps: Wendy I'm not having a go at you. If I remember correctly you didn't even know what they were until after you had them. I just have personal issues with such modifications by humans. A natural evolution is one thing: nature can and do alter over the centuries - but it only ever does so to survive.

 

[Themuleous]

Oh right I didn't realise that, ummmm....im not so sure

 

[wendywc]

You have some then? Please dont get me wrong each to their own, Im just interested to see what people think So how do they get them like it then?

Yes, Themuleous, I have 7 glofish danios. I had 8 initially that I bought 4 months ago; I did lose one runt due to a bacteria infection last month and also one is a hunchback (but he's doing fine). Otherwise, I would guess they are happy danios... they swim together, separate, dart around the tank, and are very active. I had never had danios before and honestly I did not know what I had initially. However, I'm very glad I have them and will continue to do my best to give them a good home. Here's my picture gallery: http/users2.ev1.net/~wendywc/fish/march/march.html

Any other questions, please PM me.

Bloozoo2 and company, I'm not insulted -- I can take a good debate.

 

[Themuleous]

Bloozoo2 and company, I'm not insulted -- I can take a good debate.

Cool, Im glad I spend a lot of time on here and the last thing I want to do is upset/offend someone! Just have different views

Sam

EDIT - at least they have a good home

 

[nmonks]

Hello Wendy,

Fully 25% of your fish show signs of inbreeding -- one was a runt, another deformed. The transgenic bit to create this danios is incredibly expensive, and the fish you're buying as pets will be from a very small genetic pool. They're all created by breeding very close relatives. Just as with the dalmatian dogs, this means that while we get a "desirable" trait fixed in the breed, the fish lose out by being genetically weak compared with wild, or even mass produced, fish.

Take a look at wild angelfish compared with the inbred fancy varieties like koi angels. The wild fish are twice the size and much more vigorous, as well as being far, FAR better parents. The fancy versions are notoriously stupid, and generally unable to look after their eggs or fry.

It's a shame that so many of the fishes that used to be hardy and reliable -- guppies, rams, dwarf gouramis, bronze and pepper corydoras, bettas, angels -- have been so inbred over the last decade or two that they are now delicate and in some cases difficult for even experts to keep alive. The demand for fancy varieties instead of the wild-type has meant that breeders have concentrated on raising fish descended from only a small gene pool. It's actually getting difficult to find wild-type angels and sailfin mollies, for example.

So while I'm not saying you (or anyone else) shouldn't keep artificial forms of fish you like, it's important to understand the back-story and the risks. The less like the wild-type fish your fishes are, the more serious problems of poor health, deformity, and unpredictable behaviour become.

On the flip side, aquarists who actively seek out wild-type fish have a much better chance of getting sturdy, healthy fish that will be easy to breed and free of genetic abnormalities. This doesn't mean you have to have wild-caught fish -- many wild-type fish are produced commercially. I just think there's a good argument for avoiding obviously artificially varieties if you can.

Cheers,

Neale

I had 8 initially ... I did lose one runt due to a bacteria infection last month and also one is a hunchback (but he's doing fine).

 

[Themuleous]

Thats a good point well made Neale.