Whats Up With These Glofish®?

[crazyforcordoras]

Hey all.

So, what do you think about them? Lets tart an argument, a nice one.

This will be fun!

Personally i think thy are way better than other dyed fish. Glofish were bred without artificial dyes. Unlike "Painted Glassfish", which rarely survive more than a frew months. A perfect way for Petstores to make money. The fish die, then people buy more. Glofish, however, have the same lifespan of a zebra danio, which can be a few years or more.

Does anyone want to argue?

 

[the_lock_man]

I completely agree that artificially colouring a fish using a jellyfish gene is infinitely more acceptable than dyeing. However, I have stated my views in the other thread, which is there for anyone to read. I don't see the point in this thread.

 

[SamLovesCorys]

I'm bored having just started my summer holidays with no one in the house and nothing to do... So although I agree with you I'm going to play Devil's advocate.

Genetic modification is wrong! Who are we to play god and tamper with his creation? As humans, why do we have the right to change things just to make them more appealing to us? We should revel in the Lord's creation, not try to improve what is already perfect. Also, the luminescence could be uncomfortable for the fish.

 

[crazyforcordoras]

The point of this topic is to talk about why we like or disagree with glofish and other dyed fish.

 

[Dieses Madchen]

While it may be better to be bred with certain genes for the affect, I think it alters the natural beauty of the fish. I'm more of a naturalist myself as a fish keeper. I have never even kept baloon mollies. Same with other types of specially bred fish. I won't even keep electric blue rams or electric blue jack dempseys. To me, they just don't look natural

 

[SamLovesCorys]

Sorry, I meant Glofish when I said Genetic modification.

 

[crazyforcordoras]

I agree withDM. Ballon mollies and rams are freaks of nature and often have swimming problems. Glofish i think are fine even though they have been modified. They have been naturally modified using a jellyfish gene. Painted glassfish are injected with dyes that kill the fish or fade away. And the fact that they are sold as feshwater fish when they are brackish fish is insane!

 

[onidrase]

I'd like to support it, but I really don't. I find selective breeding to be a much more acceptable practice, though IMO nothing beats a naturally colored fish.

One of the parts of glofish that irks me is the tanks they market for them. the biggest tank "made" for glofish is a 10 gallon. The other two we supply at petsmart are 3 gallons and 1.8 gallons.

Another thing I've noticed is that glofish are not as hardy as their wild counterparts. We order glofish by the dozens, usually having at least 20 of each color. By the end of the week we have maybe 4 or 5 of each color. And that's not because they're a popular product. I only sell maybe 3 every 2 weeks. By the 4th day of them being there I've pulled a majority of them off the filters and out of the gravel. I rarely have to even touch a zebra danio. Typically the ones that people buy are returned dead. Even the balloon mollies have a higher mortality rate.

 

[crazyforcordoras]

And the fact that they are ezpensive too, local petco around here has them for 10$ a piece.


My next question to talk about

Do you think glofish should be in the trade or should they never have been created? Whats your opinion?

 

[Dieses Madchen]

Never created. Why alter an already beautiful fish?

 

[crazyforcordoras]

I agree.

 

[LoachLover]

I don't actually have a problem with it, but I don't like how fake they look, so I would never buy them.

 

[Bugdozer]

I agree withDM. Ballon mollies and rams are freaks of nature and often have swimming problems. Glofish i think are fine even though they have been modified.

This was precisely my point when I pointed out in the other thread that deliberately modifying ONE aspect of a fish could be overall better for the fishes health that allowing nature to introduce a random mutation and then inbreeding from it, which has led to weak stock in the case of guppies and dwarf gouramis.

 

[LoachLover]

It seems bettas have been weakened in many cases as well. People are also seeing this a lot in purebred dog breeds. In the sake of "standard" they are sacrificing health and creating all kinds of genetic related problems.

 

[Dieses Madchen]

It seems bettas have been weakened in many cases as well. People are also seeing this a lot in purebred dog breeds. In the sake of "standard" they are sacrificing health and creating all kinds of genetic related problems.

Which unfortunately when it comes to dog, its a shame. It used to be that selective breeding was for the betterment of the animal, not just for looks. I know that when I really looked into breeding my Siberian Husky, a lot of time for the best possible breeding, it was recommended that the dog be shown and have a title. That way the dogs faults could be matched with a female who had strenghths where the male was weak. This would hopefully encourage the pups to possess the strong traits of the mother, coupled with the strong traits of the dad..thus creating a better dog.

But with reckless breeding and inbreeding in the pedigree world, we now have issues....